Independent evaluation of Australia's Murray-Darling 2001 Program

Mid-Term Review ofthe Natural Heritage Trust

Murray−Darling 2001 Program

On behalf of Agriculture, Fisheries& Forestry, Australia

Draft Submitted: 18 October, 1999Final Submitted: 8 December 1999

Project Number: 27L195A

Contact Officer: Sabina Douglas-Hill

PPK Environment &Infrastructure Pty Ltd

PPK Environment & PPK HouseInfrastructure Pty Ltd 101 Pirie Street

Adelaide SA 5000PO Box 398Adelaide SA 5001Australia

7 December 1999 Telephone: (61 8) 8405 430027L195A 99-0731-01.DOC Facsimile: (61 8) 8405 4301

ACN 078 004 798 A NATA Certified Quality Company

MURRAY-DARLING 2001 PROGRAM

PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Acknowledgement

As Project Manager for all four NHT Reviews conducted, and on behalf of PPKEnvironment and Infrastructure I would like to thank the NHT Review Team for theircommitment to this project well above and beyond their nominated roles andresponsibilities.

n Jason Alexandra (Alexandra & Associates Pty Ltd) – Principal Author andTechnical Manager, National Rivercare Program, MD2001 Program and InlandWaterways Theme Review.

n Jonathan Thomas (Resource Economics Unit Pty Ltd) – Principal Author andTechnical Manager, Urban Environment Theme Review.

n Julianne Martin – Project Management Support

n Angela Noack – Editor

I would also like to applaud the contributions of:

n Terry White & Associates Pty Ltd, Terry White;

n Hassall & Associates, Dr David Bennett and Dr David McClintock; and

n the PPK field team and support personnel nationally.

Thanks are also due to the project proponents, the client representatives and otherstakeholders, who contributed their time and hospitality as well as their ideas, andunderstood the implications of the short timeframes placed on the Review process.

Sabina Douglas-HillProject Manager – NHT ReviewsPrincipal Consultant NRMPPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD CONTENTS - PAGE I

Table of Contents

GLOSSARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Review .................................................................................................... 11.2 The Murray-Darling 2001 Program................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Operation of the Murray-Darling 2001 Program................................................ 41.2.2 Components.......................................................................................................... 41.2.3 Performance Criteria............................................................................................ 41.2.4 Policy Context....................................................................................................... 51.2.5 General Operating Context.................................................................................. 6

1.3 Conduct of the Review .................................................................................................... 81.3.1 Terms of Reference.............................................................................................. 81.3.2 Scope and Scale of the Evaluation..................................................................... 81.3.3 Constraints on the Review .................................................................................. 9

1.4 Management Strategy...................................................................................................... 101.4.1 Consultation and Co-ordination Arrangements................................................ 101.4.2 Steering Committee ............................................................................................. 111.4.3 Consultants........................................................................................................... 111.4.4 Review Team......................................................................................................... 111.4.5 Resources Used ................................................................................................... 121.4.6 Who Was Consulted............................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 2 - EVALUATION APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

2.1 Summary of the Approach.............................................................................................. 142.2 Summary of Proposed Methods/Project Stages .......................................................... 152.3 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1 Project Inception .................................................................................................. 152.3.2 Project Selection Criteria and Evaluation Methodology .................................. 162.3.3 Establish Evaluation Database ........................................................................... 182.3.4 Development of Consultation Protocols............................................................ 182.3.5 Training in the Evaluation Methodology and Protocols................................... 182.3.6 Desktop Data Acquisition and Review............................................................... 192.3.7 Project Field Reviews and Validation................................................................. 202.3.8 Draft Report Preparation and Review by Review Panel ................................... 202.3.9 Review of Draft Report by Steering Committee ................................................ 212.3.10 Final Report and Presentation ............................................................................ 21

CHAPTER 3 - INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 223.2 Validation Data Assessment........................................................................................... 23

3.2.1 Composite Site Validation and Desktop Review............................................... 233.2.2 Site Validation Data Analysis .............................................................................. 303.2.3 Desktop Review Data Analysis ........................................................................... 363.2.4 Desktop Review Fish Rehabilitation Projects ................................................... 42


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD CONTENTS - PAGE II

Contents (Continued)

Page Number3.3 Evaluation Data Assessment.......................................................................................... 44

3.3.1 Quantitative Data Results.................................................................................... 453.3.2 Qualitative Data Results ...................................................................................... 563.3.3 Validator’s Comments ......................................................................................... 60

CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 644.2 General Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................... 65

4.2.1 Background to Key Result Areas ....................................................................... 654.2.2 Summary of Conclusions .................................................................................... 664.2.3 Summary of TOR, Findings and Recommendations ........................................ 68

4.3 Findings and Recommendations for each Term of Reference ................................... 694.3.1 Determine the Extent to which MD2001 Activities have Contributed to the

Achievement of the NHT Goal and NHT Objectives (TOR 1) ........................... 694.3.2 Determine the Extent to which MD2001 Activities have Contributed to the

Achievement of Program Objectives (TOR1) .................................................... 704.3.3 The Continuing Appropriateness of MD2001 Objectives in Meeting

Stakeholder Needs and the Mix of Projects Funded - General Issues (TOR4) ............................................................................................................................ 73

4.3.4 Stakeholder Needs and of the Mix of Projects Funded (TOR 4)...................... 774.3.5 The Linkage Between Outputs and Outcomes, particularly when these are

of a Long-term Nature (TOR 5)............................................................................ 784.3.6 Unintended Results of MD2001, both Positive and Negative (TOR 6) ............ 804.3.7 The Extent to which MD2001 has Enabled Communities and Governments

to be Aware, Understand and Participate in Choices Regarding theSustainable Use of Natural Resources in the MDB (TOR 7) ............................ 80

4.3.8 The Extent to which MD2001 has Contributed to the Adoption ofEcologically Sustainable Land and Water Management PracticesParticularly by Incorporation into Regional/Catchment Planning andDevelopment Frameworks (TOR 8) .................................................................... 82

4.3.9 The Extent to which Riverine Issues have been Integrated with Land andVegetation Management Issues so as to Contribute to SustainableAgriculture Outcomes (TOR 9)............................................................................ 86

4.3.10 The Extent to which MD2001 has contributed to Water Quality andEcological Health of Rivers so as to Contribute to Broader EnvironmentalOutcomes (TOR 10).............................................................................................. 86

4.3.11 Issues of Program Improvement (TOR 3) .......................................................... 874.3.12 Assess the Quality of Performance Information Available and Identify

Requirements for Ongoing Performance Information (TOR 2 )....................... 93

APPENDICES

Appendix One: Terms of Reference................................................................................ 4Appendix Two: Project Site Selection Procedure ......................................................... 4Appendix Three: Site Visits Training Package ................................................................. 4Appendix Four: Site Validation Form .............................................................................. 4Appendix Five: Note to Consultants ............................................................................... 4Appendix Six: Evaluation Questionnaire...................................................................... 4Appendix Seven: Validator’s Questionnaire...................................................................... 4Appendix Eight: Evaluation Data (Excel) ......................................................................... 4Appendix Nine: Summary of Validator’s Comments ..................................................... 4Appendix Ten: People Consulted During the Review .................................................. 4Appendix Eleven: List of Projects Reviewed...................................................................... 4


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD GLOSSARY

Glossary

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAA Access, accountability and administrationAFFA Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, AustraliaBCC Brisbane City CouncilBMP Best Management PracticeCBA Cost-benefit AnalysisCMA Catchment Management AuthorityCCS Coasts and Clean SeasCOAG Council of Australian Governments (as in COAG reforms)CRC Cooperative Research CentreDNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)DSS Decision Support SystemsEA Environment AustraliaEMS Environmental management systemESD Ecologically Sustainable DevelopmentFAP Fisheries Action ProgramGPT Gross Pollutant TrapICM Integrated Catchment ManagementKRA Key Result AreasL&WMP Land and Water Management PlanLAP Local Action PlanLGA Local Government AssociationLMIAG Lower Murray Irrigators Action GroupLWRRDC Land and Water Research and Development CorporationMDB Murray–Darling BasinMD2001 Murray–Darling 2001 ProgramNHT Natural Heritage TrustNLP National Landcare ProgramNLWRA National Land and Water Resources AuditNRC National Rivers ConsortiumNREM Natural Resources and Environment ManagementNRHP National River Health ProgramNRM Natural Resources ManagementNRI National Rivercare InitiativeNRP National Rivercare ProgramNWP National Wetlands ProgramNSESD National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable DevelopmentNWQMS National Water Quality Management StrategyOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOSS One Stop ShopPMP Property Management Plan



PPK PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty LtdPSR Pressure – state – response (indicators)QA Quality AssuranceR&D Research and developmentRAP Regional Assessment PanelRIRDC Rural Industries Research and Development CorporationROC Regional Organisation of CouncilsSAP State Assessment PanelSEQWMS South East Queensland Water Management StrategySOE State of the Environment (as in State of the Environment Reporting)STP Sewage Treatment PlantTOR Terms of ReferenceWUE Water Use EfficiencyWTR NRM Board Wet Tropics Region Natural Resource Management BoardWWA Waterwatch Australia

Glossary of Terms

Adaptive management — A management approach that selects actions most likelyto succeed in improving a natural resource or environmental system and modifies theapproach based on monitoring the system, the outcomes and resultant change inunderstanding. The theory of adaptive management was first articulated by Hollingsin the 1960s as adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM) andhas subsequently used for managing range of natural resources including fisheries,forestry and water.

Baseline — reference point or standard against which processes and activities areassessed.

Benchmark — a reference or standard as for baseline — except that a benchmarkcan sometimes also refers to a goal or a target, for example, optimum water levels in awetland or a level of efficiency achieved by an organisation or business.

Bio economic modelling — modelling the interrelationships between biological andeconomic activities (see also environmental management below).

Ecosystem — the combination of all biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) componentsof a system, and their interrelationships, including human activities. It is possible torefer to local ecosystem e.g. a wetland, a regional ecosystem or the global ecosystem.

Ecosystem health — the capacity of an ecosystem to function in a healthy fashion,usually an aggregate measure of a range of functions such as water use and nutrientcycling.

Ecosystem integrity — the capacity of a system to continue to function in an integraland robust fashion, maintaining resilience and internal checks and balances.

Environmental audit — the systematic examination of an organisation, facility or site,to determine to what extent it conforms to specified environmental criteria based onlocal or national standards, laws or regulations. An audit can serve as sources ofbaseline information for a monitoring program.

Environmental management — a broad term covering all aspects of managementthat has a focus on the environment and environmental outcomes. In Australia this



tends to be arbitrarily separated from natural resources management. However,much international literate recognises natural resources as those components ofecosystems that have direct value to humans, and that can be re-sourced or sourcedfrom the environment on a renewable basis if certain limits or thresholds are adheredto. Thus resources and ecosystems are related but different. For example an estuaryprovides a range of ecosystem services by virtue of its dynamic processes such asnutrient recycling, waste assimilation and climate modification, and as part of theresultant biological processes a renewable resource (fish stocks) are available forharvest. The fishery resources must be managed directly, e.g. to limit over fishing, butthe estuary must also be managed to ensure a capacity to continue providing bothresources and services. Traditionally economics has valued the fish when they reachthe market but not the estuary and the processes that a re capable of regenerating theresource. Increasingly efforts are being made to link understandings of biology,ecology and economics so that the full range of services and resources can be valued.

Environmental Management System — Environmental management systems orEMS are used as a generic terms to describe any systematic management approachused by an enterprise or organisation to manage the environment.

ESD — Ecologically sustainable development as defined in Agenda 21 (UN 1992) orthe National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth ofAustralia 1992).

Indicator — something observed or measured to reflect the status of a system, like anoil pressure gauge on an engine. Indicators are central to monitoring and reporting onthe state of the environment (as per SOE). OECD countries have agreed to usepressure, state and response (PSR) indicators for SOE reporting. The PSR model isbased on the concept of causality. Both pressures and responses affect the conditionof the environment. Responses affect the pressures on the environment.

Monitoring — repeated observation and recording of findings over time.

Natural resource management — a term commonly used in Australia to means landand water management and therefor a large subset of "environmental management".It is also used widely overseas where it generally includes other resources such asfisheries, forestry and minerals.

Targets — targets specify measurable outcomes to be achieved within specified timeframes. Targets permit managers to evaluate whether an agreed action has beencarried out and its effectiveness in improving environmental conditions.

Threshold — a point at which a system changes discernibly, often referring to thepoint at which a stimulus is strong enough to produce a response, or a border or limitat which effects are produced.

Trend — the course, tendency or direction of change, often determined bymeasurement.

Trigger — a unique form of target that triggers action to address a problem, or achange in management direction.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE I

Executive Summary

E1 Introduction

The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) recently commissioned a number of independentconsultants to undertake Mid Term Reviews of all Programs that receive funding fromthe NHT. A number of Thematic, Regional and Administrative Reviews were alsocommissioned. This report details the outcomes of the Mid Term Review of theMurray-Darling 2001 Program (MD2001).

E2 The Natural Heritage Trust

In May 1997 the Commonwealth Government announced the $1.25 billion NHT toprovide for the protection and rehabilitation of Australia’s natural environment and tointegrate the objectives of environment protection, sustainable agriculture and naturalresources management consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainabledevelopment.

The goal of the NHT is to stimulate activities in the national interest to achieve theconservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s natural environment. Theobjectives of the NHT are to:

n provide a framework for strategic capital investment, to stimulate additionalinvestment in the natural environment;

n achieve complementary environment protection, natural resource managementand sustainable agriculture outcomes consistent with agreed national strategies;and

n provide a framework for co-operative partnerships between communities, industryand all levels of government.

The NHT provides an overarching framework in which 17 Programs and a number ofsub-programs are implemented in an integrated and strategic approach to managingour natural resources.

E3 The Murray-Darling 2001 Program

The Murray-Darling 2001 Program, which is administered by Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry, Australia (AFFA), aims to ensure progress towards rehabilitation ofnatural resources inside the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) with the view of achieving asustainable future for the MDB, its natural systems and its communities. The Programaims to accelerate activities through the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s (MDBC)Natural Resource Management Strategy to promote and co-ordinate effectiveplanning and management for the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the water,land and environmental resources of the MDB.

The key element of this approach is the delivery of all natural resource managementactivities though an integrated catchment management framework consistent with theagreed priorities of the MDBC’s Basin Sustainability Program.

The objectives of MD2001 are to improve the health of the Basin’s river systems by:


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE II

n improving water quality by reducing current salt and nutrient levels;

n helping to ensure all Basin catchments have integrated catchment managementplans for managing their resources;

n supporting on-ground works that address land and water degradation problemsidentified in catchment strategies;

n restoring the health of riparian land systems, wetlands and floodplains byestablishing environmental flows that are capable of sustaining natural processes,protecting water quality and the aquatic environment;

n improving the condition of key river systems in the Basin through integratedcatchment management and flow management strategies; and

n encouraging long term productive land use in the Basin in balance withenvironmental protection by reducing salinity and waterlogging in irrigated landsand dryland areas and encouraging the highest value use of scarce waterresources.

These objectives will be met by working with all levels of government, industry and thecommunity.

This Mid-Term Review is concerned with the NHT One Stop Shop (OSS) element ofMD2001, plus the MD2001 Fish Rehabilitation Program. MD2001 has been allocatedfunds of $163 million over 4 years from 1997-98 to 2000-01. The projects funded aredistributed across the MDB and range from small community group projects withfunding of $1200, to large projects (generally run by State and Territory agencies) withfunding of over $1 million. In line with the integrated catchment managementapproach under MD2001, it is desirable that all projects be an activity of a local actionplan (LAP).

E4 The Purpose, Scope and Methodology of the Review

This independent Mid Term Review of MD2001 sought to evaluate all aspects ofMD2001 from the start of the NHT to June 1999, at local, regional/catchment, Stateand national levels. The purpose of the Review is to assess the Murray-Darling 2001Program, and not the MDB Initiative. The Review has not addressed administrativeefficiency.

The objectives of the Review, as stated in the Consultancy Brief, were to:

n “determine the extent to which Program activities have contributed to theachievement of MD2001 objectives and NHT objectives with particular emphasisin improvement in on-ground outcomes, enhancement of community capacity forchange and catalytic effects of capital investment;

n assess the quality of performance information available and identify requirementsfor ongoing performance information; and

n address issues of Program improvement.”

The consultancy brief also stated seven key issues to be addressed by the Review(see Appendix 1). The Review objectives and key issues have been consideredtogether as the Terms of Reference (TOR). Progress has also been assessed againstthe stated outcomes and objectives of MD2001 in the NHT key result areas (KRAs):integration and institutions, environment, sustainable production and people.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE III

The PPK review combined desktop data analysis, site validations and evaluations,and consultation; compiled and analysed an extensive data set; and assessed theoverall findings. The Review led to recommendations for improving Program deliveryand execution, and to suggest directions for the future.

E5 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

The interpretations, conclusions and recommendations presented within this Revieware based on material generated from the project reviews, Program information,literature, and a wide range of informants consulted during the review process.

Although the Review has obtained much useful data, there is an inherent weakness inthe data in that it relies primarily on information provided by parties successful ingaining MD2001 funds. This and other weaknesses are likely to have biased theresponses to the some of the questions. The project team has attempted to keep thisin mind while drawing conclusions and making recommendations.

E5.1 Achievement of NHT Goal and Objectives (TOR 1)

The Review provides strong evidence that MD2001 funding has initiated new work,catalysed action, and expanded or speeded up activity already under way. ThereforeMD2001 has contributed to achieving the NHT goal of "stimulating activities in thenational interest to achieve the conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’snatural environment". The achievement of MD2001 in relation to each of the NHTobjectives is described briefly below:

n Provide a framework for strategic capital investment, to stimulate additionalinvestment in the natural environment. The MD2001 projects collectively make amodest achievement in this area, but the most critical elements of the requiredframework will be determined by governments through decisions on policy,regulatory and incentive mechanisms.

n Achieve complementary environment protection, natural resource managementand sustainable agriculture outcomes consistent with agreed national strategies.Most MD2001 projects have multiple objectives covering one or more of theseinter-related aspects of environment protection.

n Provide a framework for co-operative partnerships between communities,industry and all levels of government. The high number of multi-stakeholderMD2001 projects demonstrates that the Program is making a significantcontribution to this NHT objective.

The Review has assessed progress against the stated outcomes and objectives of theMD2001 in the NHT KRAs (see Table E1).


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE IV

Table E1 Summary of Achievements against NHTs Key Result Areas

NHT KRA Achievements

Integration andInstitutions

MD2001 is making a contribution to this KRA by supporting a range of activities that arestrengthening the capacity of existing institutions to assess, plan and achieve improvedNRM. MD2001 projects have been instrumental in catalysing new activities and speedingup others.

Environment MD2001 contributes directly to this KRA by working towards achieving the complementaryenvironmental protection and sustainable use of resources.

SustainableProduction

MD2001 contributes directly to this KRA by working towards achieving the complementaryenvironmental protection and sustainable use of resources.

People MD2001 is enhancing the community’s capacity and motivation to participate and isresulting in improved awareness, information dissemination and skill development.

Catalyticeffects

Projects funded by MD2001 range from highly catalytic eg planning, education,demonstration, to minimal catalytic effects eg funding of works that have limited flow orcatalytic impacts.

A total of 29 recommendations have been made throughout this report, on the basis ofthe findings of the Review, to help MD2001’s capacity to meet both its own objectivesand those of the NHT.

Recommendation 1: There is an urgent need to develop a clearer picture of themagnitude of the Natural Resource and Environmental Management (NREM)challenges and the options for addressing them within the MDB. There is now somuch "institutional reputation" invested in the MDB initiative to which the MD20001 ismajor investor that an independent assessment of progress is required.

Recommendation 2: A failure to reduce the scale of the decline of natural resourcesand ecosystems within the MDB will be of immense national economic significance.The Commonwealth should commission a Productivity Commission inquiry into thebenefits generated from Commonwealth investment in the MDB initiative through theMD2001 Program and to recommend future options for large scale and cost effectiveintervention in the MDB.

E5.2 Achievement of MD2001 Objectives (TOR 1)

The projects reviewed are aligned with the MD2001 objectives and planned outcomesand most projects appear to be well on the way to achieving their stated outputs. Theprojects should therefore make an important contribution to realising the objectives ofthe MD2001. In this sense, the projects funded are appropriate.

However, the underlying question for the interpretation of the findings relates toeffectiveness and efficiency on a national scale. Are the projects funded those that willcatalyse or leverage the greatest possible progress toward the Program’s objectivesand intended outcomes? This is a question of appropriateness of the investmentselections and how investments are targeted, both within the Program and across theNHTs suite of Programs. This area is, however, beyond the TOR of this review.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE V

E5.2.1 MD2001 Outcomes May Conflict

The review found that there is a potential conflict in the project outcomes.

Drainage systems constructed with MD2001 funds may be accelerating the dischargeof nutrient rich water or water polluted with agricultural pesticides to rivers andstreams. Therefore the funding of irrigation drainage projects which address theintended sustainable production outcome of "a reduction in environmental degradationresulting from irrigation induced salinisation and waterlogging” may conflict with thefollowing desired sustainable production and environment outcomes:

n reduction in salt, nutrient, sediment and pesticide exports from rural, urban andindustrial sources;

n improved quality of the water resource for environmental, consumptive andrecreational uses; and

n maintenance of ecological communities within floodplain, wetland, riparian and in-stream ecosystems.

This matter is potentially of considerable significance and it is recommended that theCommonwealth address it urgently.

Recommendation 3: The Commonwealth should initiate an independent review intoNHT investment into irrigation drainage infrastructure. The review should assess themerits, cost sharing and environmental impacts of irrigation drainage works funded bythe NHT and recommend ways to overcome any potential negative impacts onriverine ecosystems. Further NHT investment should be contingent on drainageproposals satisfying formal environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes and, ifthey proceed, the licensing of irrigation drains by the relevant State EPAs. TheCommonwealth should require detailed EIA before any further NHT investment so thatit can be satisfied that the environmental benefits outweigh any costs or risks to thereceiving waters.

E5.3 The Continuing Appropriateness of MD2001 Objectives in MeetingStakeholder Needs (TOR 4)

The continuing appropriateness of Program objectives needs to be determined inrelation to a wider suite of issues affecting natural resource management (NRM),including exactly who the stakeholders are, and what their needs are.

The MDB suffers from a lack of well defined institutional or managementarrangements despite the MDB initiative and the MDBC. There is a strong case formore focus on projects that explicitly aim to stimulate or support change to institutionalarrangements and/or support the development of more effective managementarrangements.

Recommendation 4: MD2001 investment should be used strategically in projectsthat help to identify critical barriers to sustainable management of the MDB and theoptions to address them.

The management of rivers in the MDB has, in the past, focused on specific objectivessuch as shipping or irrigation supply, and today there is an increased focus on holisticor ecological objectives that are often only loosely defined. Clearer objectives andtargets for river management, and processes for establishing those targets arerequired.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE VI

Recommendation 5: It is recommended that MD2001 invests in developing andtrialing processes that help clarify and articulate management goals and targets forrivers in conjunction with relevant State agencies or authorities.

E5.3.1 A More Co-ordinated Approach to River Care Knowledge Needs

MD2001 should consider the advice of Rutherfurd et al (1998) on developing criteriafor assessing cost effectiveness in river management and restoration. On the basis ofcost effectiveness and potential return on investment, they recommended that prioritybe given to investments in conservation of ecological functional systems or riverreaches, then to rivers that will respond to management change, and lastly to restoreextensively degraded systems.

Recommendation 6: MD2001 should develop criteria for assessing costeffectiveness of river restoration investments. Projects focused on restoration andrehabilitation should be directed to developing skills and understanding in riverrestoration processes, including developing an understanding of the most cost-effective methods to achieve the desired outcomes.

Restoration ecology and ecological river management are young disciplines,especially in an Australian context, hence it is imperative that lessons are learned andtransferred between practice and theory, and that skills and understanding of riverprocesses and management are developed and disseminated.

Recommendation 7: It is recommended that MD2001 actively supports thedevelopment of ‘the body of knowledge’ by working more closely with educational andresearch and development (R&D) institutions at both the national and regional scale.

Recommendation 8: In conjunction with the research and education institutions, it isrecommended that MD2001 invests more in national (and other) projects that satisfythe need for river management training and information dissemination.

It is understood that MD2001 currently supports the National Rivers Consortium(NRC).

Recommendation 8.1: It is recommended that MD2001 becomes a full partner in theNational Rivers Consortium should it proceed. In the event that it does not proceed,MD2001 should explore other avenues for improving understanding and informationexchange in collaboration with R&D organisations.

Recommendation 8.2: MD2001 should do more to provide generic support andprofessional capacity building that is specifically pitched at improving riverine andcatchment assessment, planning and management skills throughout the MDB.

Recommendation 8.3: MD2001 should invest directly in projects that supportimproved information networks and the development and dissemination of informationrelevant to ecosystem management in the MDB.

Recommendation 8.4: MD2001 should support projects that actively disseminatetools, methods, advice, support and information on river processes and management.

E5.4 The Continuing Appropriateness in Meeting Stakeholder Needs and of theMix of Projects Funded (TOR 4)

The Review found that MD2001 is meeting stakeholders needs and that there is ahigh degree of satisfaction in the Program from those interviewed. However, the


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE VII

primary information source was managers of projects that had already receivedfunding and, as such, was probably a biased sample.

The review process was not able to identify the extent to which the projects fundedactually respond to issues on the scale required. The project selection process mustbe more accurately matched to a needs assessment process. This would ensuregreater certainty that projects are addressing high priority needs with appropriateresponses.

The Review found only limited investment in projects addressing environmental flowsand flow management strategies. This important objective appears to have beenneglected, because of the random selection process, the bottom up nature of the OSSprocess, or the scale and complexity of environmental flow issues.

Recommendation 9: It is recommended that the limited investment in projects thataddress environmental flows and flow management strategies should be rectified.

E5.4.1 Define the Role of MD2001

MD2001 needs clearer demarcation from other NHT Programs, to minimiseduplication of effort and to increase Program cost-effectiveness. It needs bedistinguished from the National Landcare Program (NLP) and Bushcare on the smalleraction projects and on planning projects, as many of these projects appear similar inaim, scope and approach.

Demarcation is also required between MD2001 and the National River HealthProgram (NRHP) for projects aiming to determine environmental values orenvironmental flow requirements.

Recommendation 10: The roles and relationships between MD2001, NLP, Bushcareand the NRHP should be better defined.

E5.5 The Linkage between Outputs and Outcomes, particularly when these areof a Long-term Nature (TOR 5)

The Review found that MD2001 funding has contributed to numerous outputs andoutcomes. About 90% of projects report that outputs appear measurable andachievable. Projects reported that funding had initiated new work (60%), catalysedlocal action (54%) and sped up (40%) or expanded ongoing activities (38%). Inaddition, 40% of those interviewed believed that the projects have resulted inimproved riverine ecosystems and 70% believed that the projects were addressingcauses not symptoms.

While there is much activity, the links between outputs and outcomes was not clear.Confidence that outputs are linked to long term outcomes is best gained from thepredictive capacity of the ecological and biological sciences. R&D organisations canprovide useful models of ecological processes, models of river health and a clearerunderstanding of how to intervene to maximise chances of success.

Investments in scientific review of catchment plans and other forms of independentassessment would provide greater certainty that project outputs will lead to outcomes.

Recommendation 11: MD2001 should invest in independent reviews of catchmentplans and action plans to provide greater certainty that planned project outputs willlead to desired long term outcomes.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE VIII

Over 40% of projects were perceived to be achieving riverine ecosystemimprovements. This indicated that where MD2001 has invested, it has been possibleto implement a project that has improved some aspect of the environment. However,while these projects are useful, they do not inform of the scale of the need, or theextent to which the overall need has been met. MD2001 has contributed to achievingimprovements in the MDB, but there is still a vast job to do. The Program hascontributed to a greater appreciation of the scale of that job.

Many project proponents believed that is ‘too early to tell’ if desired biophysicaloutcomes have been achieved, because of temporal and spatial scales, the influenceof many compounding factors, the generally poor quality of baseline information, andother factors.

In future, it will be very difficult to attribute change entirely to MD2001 because everyproject has been undertaken in partnership.

E5.6 Unintended Results of MD2001, both Positive and Negative (TOR 6)

This MD2001 Review has identified both positive and negative unintendedconsequences. The positive results included:

n increased interest and development of new or expanded action groups;n increased demand for technical information and support; andn increased recognition of cultural and historical values of rivers.

The Review found some community frustration directed at NHT processes, includingtiming of payments, feedback on reduced budgets, funding guidelines and applicationforms.

E5.7 The Extent to which MD2001 has Enabled Communities and Governmentsto be Aware, Understand and Participate in Choices Regarding IssuesAffecting the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in the MDB (TOR 7)

Many of the outputs of the Program are community education and awareness,improved knowledge and greater capacity to manage natural resources. These wereall very important outputs, but it is difficult to link them directly to long-term outcomes.

MD2001 has made sizeable investments in projects that have specific education,communication and planning components. There was clear justification for continuingthese kinds of investments because these are the kinds of projects that support moreawareness, understanding and informed decisions.

MD2001 funds a large number of local works or action projects, which also influencethe community's ability to participate and understand, by the involvement of a widerange of stakeholders (from land-holders to schools and universities, to State and localgovernments), and by the dissemination of results.

Skill development and awareness are important outputs of the MD2001 investment. Ithas the potential for high future returns and is a NHT priority outcome area that isdemonstrating high achievement.

Recommendation 12: It is recommended that MD2001 continue its investment incommunity education and capacity building projects and programs.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE IX

NHT processes emphasise partnerships and many MD2001 projects are multi-stakeholder partnerships with a range of agencies providing support and involvement.In these kinds of projects it is hard to identify the driving force, however there is strongevidence that the MD2001 funding has initiated new work, catalysed action, andexpanded or speeded up activity.

Many choices about rivers are made at larger scales and few local governmentprocesses align well to the scale of most rivers. MD2001 has funded projects thathelp to bring the parties together across the scales involved in river management.

MD2001 should continue to support the capacity building necessary to enableinformed decisions at all scales. In particular, it must continue to support improvedcapacity at the catchment scale. It is at this scale that organisational and planningcapacity is often weakest.

E5.8 The Extent to which MD2001 has Contributed to the Adoption ofEcologically Sustainable Land and Water Management PracticesParticularly by Incorporation into Regional/Catchment Planning andDevelopment Frameworks (TOR 8)

E5.8.1 Catchment Planning and Development Frameworks

Catchments are the primary scale used for land and water management planning inmost parts of Australia. MD2001 has supported and contributed to this by providingresources for catchment organisations to plan, and to implement plans or parts ofplans.

Effective management arrangements or frameworks for NRM at a catchment orregional scale are critical to the long-term success of the NHT investment. If the goalsof river health and improved NRM are to be achieved then there must be change at aregional scale. The number of multi-stakeholder projects implies that institutions areevolving.

Well-defined management structures or regional management arrangements,including the capacity to assign responsibilities, are an important component of thecapacity to manage waterways on the scale needed. MD2001 is well placed tosupport the capacity of these emerging NRM frameworks with technical andeducational support. It can further stimulate institutional evolution and should explicitlyaim to catalyse the development of excellence in institutional arrangements and inplanning and implementation capacity.

Recommendation 13: It is recommended that MD2001 explicitly acknowledges theimportance of sound management structures at a regional scale, works to stimulatefurther institutional evolution where necessary, and supports increased capacityamongst these institutions to deliver integrated natural resources management.

E5.8.2 Improving Technical and Institutional Capacity

There is an enormous need for continuing support and capacity building to achieveintegrated NRM goals in many regions across the MDB. MD2001 should devote moreresources to regional scale assessment, planning and capacity building with theintention of improving the quality of the plans generated.

The need to invest in more large-scale projects that build capacity and supportimproved management at the local and regional scale, requires that MD2001 focus oninvestments on further NRM planning and strategies that:


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE X

n are robust, and based on good quality information and sound ecosystem andhydrological understanding to improve success and cost effectiveness;

n are embedded in, or linked with, effective institutions;

n are endorsed by relevant institutions to facilitate consistent policy and regulation;and

n make better use of statutory planning and resource allocation powers to protectrivers and natural systems.

MD2001 should further build technical and institutional capacity in river managementby:

n investing in multi-regional capacity building projects that are capable of supportingregional or catchment efforts;

n supporting projects that ensure better use of Australia's technical expertise;

n supporting ‘train-the-trainer’ roles, networking and communicator roles;

n developing and disseminating effective tools, techniques, methods etc;

n commissioning reviews of successful projects and transferring these models toother regions; and

n encouraging regional management frameworks with management and regulationfunctions.

Recommendation 14: It is recommended that MD2001 advances institutionalevolution by investing in targeted capacity building projects, along with reviews anddocumentation of successful models, and by linking funding of regional strategies toformalised management and regulatory frameworks.

E5.8.3 Regional Planning and Market Forces

Over the last decade local, State and Commonwealth governments have invested in awide range of regional planning processes aimed at developing integrated regionalNRM strategies. These strategies operate at a scale between local and Stategovernment, and rarely have a well-defined statutory basis.

The integrated planning initiatives for NRM in many States, have mostly focused onissue identification and planning within a public policy or program context. There is aneed to focus more on how to achieve outcomes in a cost-effective fashion, and onhow to use a wide range of inputs (including regulatory measures, markets andstatutory planning) to achieve the desired outcomes.

A lot of credence is given to MDB projects taking place within the context of some kindof plan. However, little information is available about plan effectiveness, level ofintegration or long-term objectives.

Recommendation 15: It is recommended that MD2001 invests more in theassessment and review of regional NRM or catchment plans, to ensure a soundecological underpinning to the plans and provide confidence that planned outputs willlead to outcomes. Where it is not certain that outputs will lead to outcomes in a cost-effective fashion, projects should be independently reviewed and/or develop ahypothesis that can be tested in the early phases of the project.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE XI

Recommendation 16: All large projects that have MD2001 investment inimplementation should have independent analysis or assessments built in as an earlymilestone.

E5.9 The Extent to which Riverine Issues have been Integrated with Land andVegetation Management Issues so as to Contribute to SustainableAgriculture Outcomes (TOR 9)

Approximately 58% of projects reviewed aimed to achieve the NHT’s KRA ofSustainable Production. In addition, many projects were simultaneously aiming toachieve outcomes in both the Environment and Sustainable Production KRAs.Further, over 70% of projects were part of some type of existing plan, with additionalprojects being a plan in themselves. Catchment plans and land and watermanagement plans in particular aim to integrate riverine and land and vegetationmanagement issues, providing further evidence of the contribution of MD2001 projectstowards sustainable agriculture outcomes.

Despite the level of integration implied by the involvement of projects in plans, thereare a number of projects in which the issues are not being integrated. For example,projects attacking symptoms (such as the restoration of degraded riparian vegetation)may be addressing riverine issues, but may be failing to address the potentially land-based cause of the problem (such as dryland salinity elsewhere in the catchment).

Little information is available regarding the effectiveness, scientific basis, or level ofintegration of long-term objectives of the aforementioned plans. There is therefore aneed to focus on the quality of the plans and the professional and technical capacityrequired to develop effective plans.

The concerns previously mentioned regarding the potential conflict of sustainableagriculture and environment outcomes on MD2001-funded irrigation drainage projectsprovide additional concerns about the lack of integration of land and water issues.

E5.10 The Extent to which MD2001 has contributed to Water Quality and theEcological Health of Rivers so as to Contribute to Broader EnvironmentalOutcomes (TOR 10)

Many project proponents believed that it is too early to tell if desired biophysicaloutcomes have been achieved. The range of issues contributing to this uncertaintyincludes the temporal and spatial scales involved, other compounding factors and thegenerally poor quality of baseline information.

E5.11 Issues of Program Improvement (TOR 3)

This Review identified six issues of Program improvements, discussed below. Thefindings and recommendations in this Section should be cross-referenced with thefindings of the Administrative Review.

1. Funding delays and timing(Beyond the scope of this Review)

2. Funding insecurity and short term funding(Beyond the scope of this Review)


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE XII

3. Insufficient feedback on applications and funding reduction, and confusingapplication forms and guidelines that are inconsistently appliedBoth successful and unsuccessful proponents need more feedback on fundingapprovals, to allow them to improve their projects and project applications.Without any feedback or explanation, the application forms remain confusing, andguidelines appear to have been applied inconsistently.

Recommendation 17: The Commonwealth should establish minimum standards andbenchmarks for the feedback required by RAPS and SAPS to project proponents.

4. Onerous paperwork and administrative load for community groupsThe volume of the ‘paperwork burden’ loaded on to community groups has beenraised by this and other NHT Mid Term Reviews.

Recommendation 18: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldimprove access to small grants by volunteer groups, by minimising the administrationand accountability workload without compromising good practice.

Recommendation 19: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldincrease accountability and contractual obligations for larger grants moving to moredefined contract management arrangements with milestone reporting and progresspayments.

Recommendation 20: The NHT Program funds should be delivered through fourseparate processes that have different geographic scales and clarify the level ofaccountability, contractual obligations and implementation responsibilities.

5. The need for devolution of local grants to a regional bodyThe Devolved Grants Schemes (DGS) should be used for standard regionalpriorities ready for implementation. In a DGS, the project proponent subcontractsthe grant into smaller parcels using simple contractual arrangements. TheCommonwealth should be prepared to specify criteria for institutional capacity tohandle devolution of local action grants, and must be prepared to negotiatecontracts in more detail for DGS to work effectively.

Recommendation 21: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldfurther develop the use of devolved grant schemes. Devolved grants are anopportunity to streamline the access, accountability and administration (AAA) of smallgrants to let the volunteers get on with doing the job, and move the AAA to a higherlevel, umbrella organisation.

Recommendation 22: MD2001 should invest in an improved project managementsystem, which is capable of managing the larger projects on a milestone reporting andpayment basis, to allow the effective implementation of DGS.

Recommendation 23: MD2001 should move to milestone reporting, to improve thecapacity to collate project outputs, collect finer quality performance information andenable improved assessment of project or Program performance.

MD2001 should also put more resources into Program management and adopt aclearer project management cycle so that the Program and major projects areencouraged to evolve and adapt.

6. Onerous and unrealistic performance indicators and monitoringrequirementsThis is further addressed in Section E5.12.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE XIII

E5.12 Assess the Quality of Performance Information Available and IdentifyRequirements for Ongoing Performance Information (TOR 2)

The Partnership Agreements nominate a series of performance indicators (PI) forMD2001, according to the NHTs KRA. Each PI was subjectively ranked according toits potential effectiveness against six criteria. Most indicators were found to begenerally satisfactory, but required some tightening to show cause and effect, to bemore outcomes focused and more concise.

Recommendation 24: It is recommended that the current MD2001 performanceindicators are replaced with those contained in Table E2.

Table E2 Recommended Performance Indicators for MD2001

Performance Indicators against NHTs KRAIntegration and Institutional:a) Extent that the implementation of flow regime is monitored and evaluatedb) Extent to which Basin-wide vegetation management and retention policy is incorporated in

catchment management plansc) Extent to which groundwater management strategies are included in catchment management

plans and are being implementedd) Number of catchments with comprehensive catchment management plans implemented,

including disposal, reuse and treatment of urban sewerage and stormwater.

Environmental:a) Level of turbidity, salt, blue-green algae, phosphorus (see Australian Water Quality Guidelines

for Fresh and Marine Waters).b) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted and remnant riparian vegetation fenced.c) Rate of groundwater rise in the MDB.d) The number of endangered or threatened riverine species

Sustainable Production:a) Area of land assessed for current land use against land capability.b) Area of land utilised in accordance with its capabilities.c) Area covered by regional/catchment plans incorporating sustainable land and water

management practicesd) Level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniquese) Level of adoption of higher value crops for water used

People:a) Extent of community involvement in supporting on-ground works

Recommendation 25: It is recommended that the roles of different parties(Commonwealth, State, Community and Project Proponents) be clarified for thecollation of Performance Information.

Recommendation 26: It is recommended that the performance indicators be usedwhere baseline data is available.

Recommendation 27: It is recommended that targets be set for each performanceindicator.

The Review found that at an individual project level, the large-scale projects (whichoften had agency involvement) generally had good to excellent quality performancedata. However, this tended to relate to project objectives, rather than to MD2001s PIs.In contrast, many (smaller) community groups did not have the equipment or capacityto conduct monitoring.

Recommendation 28: Performance information should be linked to outcomes at aregional scale. Small projects should only report on outputs whereas the collectiveoutcomes of all investment/activities should be measurable regionally by applying a


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - PAGE XIV

clear monitoring for management logic based around State of the Environmentreporting and adaptive management theory.

Recommendation 29: Regional NRM consortia, integrated catchment managementcommittees and catchment authorities should adopt clearer benchmarks, targets andgoals as well as nominated performance indicators for actions and outcomes.Monitoring strategies should be based on regionally appropriate indicators measuredat the right temporal and spatial scales. Larger projects should report performanceagainst milestones specified in contracts.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD CHAPTER 1 - PAGE 1

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the Review

PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (PPK) was commissioned by Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry, Australia (AFFA) to undertake an independent evaluation ofthe Murray−Darling 2001 (MD2001) Program as part of the NHT Mid-Term Review.

The Mid-Term Review was a necessary part of good management of this NaturalHeritage Trust (NHT) Program, providing the opportunity to review progress, to rectifyany weaknesses in program delivery and execution, and to suggest directions for thefuture.

The MD2001 Program Review was one of a number of Reviews being conducted aspart of the Mid-Term Review of the NHT. The objectives of the Review, as stated inthe Consultancy Brief, were to:

“determine the extent to which Program activities have contributed to the achievementof MD2001 objectives and NHT objectives with particular emphasis in on-groundoutcomes, enhancement of community capacity for change and catalytic effects ofcapital investment; assess the quality of performance information available and identifyrequirements for ongoing performance information; and address issues of Programimprovement.”

This Review encompasses all aspects of the MD2001 Program from the start of theNHT to June 1999, taking into consideration links with other conservation and naturalresource management activities. The Review, whilst almost national in scope, had aparticular focus on the ‘on-ground’ projects, catchment planning and local actionplanning activities specific to the MDB.

The evaluation sought to determine the extent to which Program activities havecontributed to the achievement of MD2001 Program objectives, and to NHTobjectives, with particular emphasis on:

n improvement in on-ground outcomes;

n enhancement of community capacity for change;

n the catalytic effects of investment; and

n the quality of current performance information.

The recommendations of the Review focus on ongoing performance information andimproving NHT funded activities in the future.

Chapter

1



1.2 The Murray-Darling 2001 Program

The MD2001 Program aims to ensure progress towards rehabilitation of naturalresources inside the Murray−Darling Basin (MDB) with the view of achieving asustainable future for the Basin, its natural systems and its communities. TheProgram aims to accelerate activities through the Murray−Darling Basin Commission’s(MDBC) Natural Resource Management Strategy to promote and co-ordinate effectiveplanning and management for the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the water,land and environmental resources of the MDB.

The key element of this approach is the delivery of all natural resource managementactivities though an integrated catchment management framework consistent with theagreed priorities of the Commission’s Basin Sustainability Program.

The objectives of MD2001 are to improve the health of the Basin’s river systemsthrough:

n improving water quality by reducing current salt and nutrient levels;

n helping to ensure all Basin catchments have integrated catchment managementplans for managing their resources;

n supporting on-ground works that address land and water degradation problemsidentified in catchment strategies;

n restoring the health of riparian land systems, wetlands and flood plains byestablishing environmental flows that are capable of sustaining natural processes,protecting water quality and the aquatic environment;

n improving the condition of key river systems in the Basin through integratedcatchment management and flow management strategies; and

n encouraging long term productive land use in the Basin in balance withenvironmental protection by reducing salinity and waterlogging in irrigated landsand dryland areas and encouraging the highest value use of scarce waterresources.

These objectives will be met by working with all levels of government, industry and thecommunity.

The MD2001 Program logic is outlined in Table 1.1.



Table 1.1 MD2001 Program Logic and Hierarchy of Intended Results of MD2001Program

Ultimate Outcomes of the Program as a Whole(beyond the direct control of MD2001)

Goal: To contribute to the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), with a view to achieving asustainable future for the Basin, its natural systems and its communities.

Intermediate Outcomes(predominantly the aggregated effects of many projects ie. the program)

Environment Outcomes Sustainable Production OutcomesImproved quality of the water resources forenvironmental, consumptive and recreationaluses.

Maintenance and enhancement of the sustainableproductive capacity of the land resource base.

Maintenance of ecological communities withinfloodplain, wetland, riparian and instreamecosystems.

Development of a balance between land use andland capabilities.

Control or reversal of rising groundwater tables. Reduction in environmental degradation resultingfrom irrigation induced salinisation andwaterlogging.

Maintenance and improvement in drylandsalinity

Substantial reduction in salt, nutrient, sediment andpesticide exports from rural, urban and industrialsources.

Maintenance and improvement of nativevegetation cover.

Improvement of the efficiency of irrigation wateruse.

Maintenance of key ecological processes.Control of threats to biodiversity.Integration and Institutional Outcomes People OutcomesSustainable land and water managementpractices incorporated into integratedregional/catchment planning and developmentframeworks.

Communities and governments enabled to makeinformed economic, environmental and socialchoices regarding the sustainable use of naturalresources by providing the best availableinformation

Establishment of river flow regimes that providea sustainable distribution between consumptiveand in-stream requirements.

and appropriate decision support tools.

Improvement of groundwater resourcemanagement.

Outputs of Projects: Products, Services, Plans, Information- Co-ordinated on-ground actions by community groups to improve water quality in local rivers

- maintain or improve water quality by preventing pollution (such as trapping sediments ornutrients), improving the management of discharges or controlling stock access to rivers.

- manage accelerated erosion or build-up of riverbanks or beds (where it is ecologically andhydrologically sound to do so).

- contribute to healthy stream and riparian ecosystems.- Large, integrated projects involving a range of stakeholders, including community groups, local

shires and agencies, to improve river management with biodiversity and sustainable productionbenefits.

- Projects focusing on addressing key water quality and nutrient management issues in catchmentcontext, projects focusing on stormwater management as part of the water cycle.

- Activities focusing on developing water course management and strategic activities relating toenvironmental flows.

- Participation by communities in training and Landcare.- Implementation of weed and feral pest management/control programs for the riverine environment

(esp. European Carp).- Development of comprehensive Catchment Management Plans.- Develop actions to improve the efficiency of irrigation techniques and crops.- Activities to develop alternative farming techniques and uses for waterlogged and sanitised land.



1.2.1 Operation of the Murray-Darling 2001 Program

The Government has committed $163 million over 4 years from 1997–98 to 2000–01to accelerate the natural resource management activities in the MDB, consistent withthe agreed priorities of the Commission’s Basin Sustainability Program, through anintegrated catchment management framework.

1.2.2 Components

MD2001 in the context of this review, refers to the NHT One-Stop-Shop (OSS)element of MD2001 plus the MD2001 Fish Rehabilitation Program (a program underthe umbrella of MD2001).

In 1997–98 MD2001 funded 251 new community and State projects through the NHTOne-Stop-Shop process at a cost of $16 million. In 1998−99 MD2001 funded 189new community and State and Territory agency projects as well as 239 continuingprojects, at a cost of $26 million. These projects are distributed across the MDB andrange from small projects with funding in any one year of $1,200 to large projects withfunding of over $1 million. In line with the integrated catchment managementapproach under MD2001, it is desirable that all projects be an activity of a local actionplan (LAP).

1.2.3 Performance Criteria

Partnership agreements have been established between the NHT (theCommonwealth of Australia) and each of the States and Territories of Australia.These agreements outline the roles and responsibilities of the respective parties forthe delivery of the objectives of the NHT and any associated Programs (includingMD2001).

Each of the Performance Agreements contains a set of performance indicators foreach Program, but notes that “the performance indicators are considered highlyrelevant to the core priorities of MD2001 and will be further developed to reflect BasinSustainability Program objectives”.

The performance indicators vary slightly from State to State, but are essentially thesame nationwide. As an example, the performance indicators written into thePartnership Agreement for NSW (1997) are listed in Table 1.2. Each indicator relateto at least one of the NHT’s key result areas (KRA).

Table 1.2 Summary of Performance Indicators for MD2001 from the NSWPartnership Agreement

NHT KRA Performance Indicator

IntegrationandInstitutional1

(a) Extent of implementation of agreed flow regime with monitoring andevaluation of river health.

(b) Basin-wide vegetation management and retention policy developed andincorporated in catchment management plans.

(c) Extent to which groundwater management strategies are included incatchment management plans and are being implemented.

(d) Number of catchments with comprehensive catchment management plansimplemented, including disposal, reuse and treatment of urban sewerageand stormwater.

1 Qld has an additional performance indicator: “extent to which regional strategies and integrated action plansare developed”.



NHT KRA Performance Indicator

Environment (a) Improvements in water quality as specified in Australian WaterQuality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters for turbidity, salt,blue-green algae, phosphorus.

(b) Health of riverine environments assessed against agreed indices.(c) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted and remnant riparian

vegetation fenced.(d) Extent of implementation of other revegetation activities in strategic

areas.(e) Level of salt, nutrient and pesticide loads less than or equal to

mandated levels.(f) Rate of groundwater rise.(g) Improved viability of native riverine species and communities.2

SustainableProduction

(a) Area of land assessed for current land use against land capability.(b) Area of land utilised in accordance with its capabilities.(c) Coverage by regional/catchment plans incorporating sustainable

land and water management practices.(d) Level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniques.(e) Level of adoption of higher value crops for water used (e.g

replacement of dairy farming with horticulture).(f) Sustained regional productivity.

People3 (a) Level of information provided on best management practices andefficient farming systems and techniques.4

(b) Number of participants in property management plan courses.(c) Number of communities engaged in integrated monitoring activities

within the Basin.5

It is noted that the draft document “Monitoring Evaluation and Framework” (NHT,1998) contains some recommendations for alternative performance indicators. Arange of performance indicators have also been developed by the Basin SustainabilityProgram against three sub program areas (Irrigation, Dryland and Riverine), and keyresult areas of sustainable agriculture productivity, water quality and natureconservation.

1.2.4 Policy Context

The MDB represents a vital component of both Australia's natural capital andeconomic base. The significant values inherent in the MDB include varied dryland andirrigated agricultural production, water supply, heritage and environmental values. Thepressures of competition for the natural resources within the Basin have meant thatcatchments and the riparian environment face a range of threats to their ecologicalintegrity, production sustainability and environmental flow capabilities.

Protecting these values by maintaining and improving the health of the MDB, whichinvolves numerous regional catchments, has been an important objective of the NHT.

2 SA, Qld & Vic do not mention “…native riverine species”, rather just have “…native species”.3 Qld has an additional performance indicator: “Number of education, skills development and awarenessactivities relating to catchment management”.4 Qld specifies “level / quality of…” rather than just “level”.5 SA, Qld & Vic do not specify “number of…” but this may be an oversight.



A number of key, well-defined historical trends form the background to attempts toimprove the management of the MDB and its associated river systems andwaterways:

n declining health of rivers, lakes, flood plains and wetlands, and their catchments;

n deteriorating water quality within the Murray−Darling river system, predominantlydue to nutrient and salt loading;

n declining diversity, distribution and abundance of many species of flora and fauna(including native fish) dependent on the various riparian systems, wetlands andflood plains within the MDB;

n increasing recognition within primary industry sectors of the need for sustainableland use practices and integrated catchment management techniques to addressissues of salinity and waterlogging on productive land;

n increasing public concern about the future of the MDB;

n intensifying competition for limited water and acknowledgement of failing waterquality;

n increasing recognition of the need to formalise environmental flows; and

n greater community-based recognition of the need for an integrated approach tothe management of rivers and their catchments.

In response to these biophysical and community trends various policies and strategieshave aimed directly or indirectly at addressing the declining health of the river systemsand associated waterways within the MDB. Numerous regional, State and nationalstrategies aim to conserve or restore those river systems and regional catchmentswhich exist within the MDB. In addition to the policies of the MDBC, the above aimsare supported by several interdependent national policies and strategies including:

n National Water Quality Strategy;

n COAG Water Resources Policy;

n National Biodiversity Strategy; and

n National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD).

Thus the NHT Programs and projects addressing the MDB river systems andcatchments sit within the context of the varying biophysical conditions within the MDB,and the changing societal goals that have been clearly articulated in the abovestrategies and related policies.

1.2.5 General Operating Context

The Natural Heritage Trust

In May 1997 the Commonwealth Government announced the $1.25 billion NaturalHeritage Trust (NHT) to provide for the protection and rehabilitation of Australia’snatural environment and to integrate the objectives of environment protection,sustainable agriculture and natural resources management consistent with theprinciples of ecologically sustainable development.



The goal of the NHT is to stimulate activities in the national interest to achieve theconservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s natural environment. Theobjectives of the NHT are to:

n Provide a framework for strategic capital investment, to stimulate additionalinvestment in the natural environment;

n Achieve complementary environment protection, natural resource managementand sustainable agriculture outcomes consistent with agreed national strategies;and

n Provide a framework for cooperative partnerships between communities, industryand all levels of government.

The goals and objectives of the NHT establish the basis for the four key result areas(KRAs) for the NHT. These are integration and institutions, environment, sustainableproduction and people.

The NHT provides an overarching framework in which 17 Programs and a number ofsub programs are implemented in an integrated and strategic approach to managingour natural resources. MD2001 is one of the Programs funded by the NHT.

Partnership Agreements

Partnership agreements have been established between the NHT (theCommonwealth of Australia) and each of the States and Territories of Australia.These bilateral agreements establish the terms and conditions under which financialassistance is provided by the NHT. They also outline the roles and responsibilities ofthe respective parties for the delivery of the objectives of the NHT and any associatedPrograms (including MD2001).

The Application Process

Most applications for funding from the MD2001 are processed through the One StopShop (OSS). The OSS delivers funding for 10 Programs through a single application,assessment and evaluation process.

In the OSS process, most applications are initially examined by a regional assessmentpanel (RAP), which considers the eligibility of the projects in terms of local andregional priorities. The RAPs prepare a set of ranked applications, or a ‘regional bid’,which is forwarded to a State assessment panel (SAP). The SAP recommendsprojects to be supported from each of the regions, in addition to statewide projects,and projects that cross regional boundaries. The ‘state bid’ is then forwarded to theCommonwealth. Some projects with a national perspective are assessed byCommonwealth officers and ranked according to national priorities. The final decisionon funding from the NHT is made by the Ministers responsible for the Program (theMinister for the Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheriesand Forestry).

The assessment panels (RAPs and SAPs) are chaired by a communityrepresentative, comprise a majority of community membership, and encompass abroad range of appropriate skills and experience. State and Territory Governmentsalso appoint members to the panels, following consultation with the Commonwealth.



1.3 Conduct of the Review

1.3.1 Terms of Reference

The terms of reference are contained in Appendix 1, and include the following keyissues:

n the continuing appropriateness of Program objectives in meeting stakeholderneeds and the mix of projects funded;

n examination of the linkages between outputs and outcomes, particularly whenthese are of a long term nature;

n identification of any unintended outcomes of the Program, both positive andnegative and how they are/can be handled;

n the extent to which the Program has enabled communities and governments to beaware, understand and participate in choices regarding issues the sustainable useof natural resources in the MDB;

n the extent to which the Program has contributed to the adoption of ecologicallysustainable land and water management practices, particularly by incorporationinto integrated regional/catchment planning and development frameworks;

n the extent to which riverine issues have been integrated with land and vegetationmanagement issues so as to contribute to sustainable agriculture outcomes; and

n the extent to which the Program has contributed to water quality and ecologicalhealth of rivers so as to contribute to broader environmental outcomes.

1.3.2 Scope and Scale of the Evaluation

This Review has examined all aspects of the MD2001 Program from thecommencement of NHT until June 1999. It has determined the extent to whichProgram activities had contributed to the achievement of Program objectives and NHTobjectives with a particular emphasis on improvement in on-ground outcomes,enhancement of community capacity for change and catalytic effects of investment. Italso assessed the quality of performance information available, identified requirementsfor ongoing performance information and made recommendations for Programimprovement.

To address the specific objectives of the Review, investigations were undertaken to:

n Determine the impact of the Program on community awareness and involvement.Where linkages to facilitate community involvement promoted;

n Determine the extent of integration with biodiversity, land and vegetationmanagement;

n Assess how the Program has assisted in developing response capacity andtargeted management, to address critical barriers and improve MDB health withincatchment contexts;

n Determine the success of the Program in stimulating investment (specificallypertaining to the local action planning context) to address river managementoutcomes that address national, State and regional priorities;



n Assess how the Program has assisted in the provision of data and decisionsupport systems to support informed decisions regarding investment andenvironmental water provision.

The Review has not addressed administrative efficiency, recognising that this was tobe the subject of separate NHT mid-term review.

1.3.3 Constraints on the Review

From inception the project has been constrained by extremely tight time framescombined with the necessity to fulfil highly structured client-consultant protocols andcommunication and reporting regimes. The time-activity tension generated in thisenvironment has been increased by the additional field component intrinsic in projectsite visits and validations. A large proportion of consultancy project time has beenabsorbed by client-consultant and consultant-proponent consultation and reportingprotocols, and this, along with the late commencement of the project, necessitated thesimultaneous operation of several tasks which had been designed to occursequentially.

The result of this strategy was the recoupment of some 6 weeks over the life of theproject, but also the deployment of additional field staff to cover the distance inreduced time, additional data processors and additional editing staff.

The time lines are summarised here for the purposes of understanding the time andmanagement constraints imposed by the nature of the Review.

24 May 1999 PPK Proposal submitted.

17 June 1999 Proposal accepted in writing and contract awarded.

8 July 1999 Telephone conference with Steering Committee.

9 July 1999 Inception meeting in Canberra.

27 July 1999 Draft Scoping Paper and update report #1 submitted.

28 July 1999 Contract finalised.

4 August 1999 Project selection criteria, training package andevaluation questionnaire submitted to client.

6 August 1999 Amendments to Scoping Paper received.

10 August 1999 Scoping Paper finalised, and update report #2submitted.

10 August 1999 Site visit guidelines provided by AFFA.

12 August 1999 Project selection criteria, training package andevaluation questionnaire approved by client.

12 August 1999 Project selection (90 projects) submitted to client.

16 August 1999 Acceptance of selection, in principle, received.

16 August 1999 Standard Validation spreadsheet supplied by client.

18 August 1999 Majority of project application forms for selected sitesobtained from client.

20 August 1999 PPK field team consultation, evaluation and validationtraining session conducted.

24 August 1999 Desktop Review project selection (80 projects)submitted to client.



25 August 1999 Client advice of some project site overlaps and need toreselect.

30 August 1999 Contact details for most selected project proponentssupplied by client.Update report #3 submitted.

31 August 1999 Request shortlist for initial proponent contact forwardedto the State NHT Review co-ordinators by PPK.

31 August 1999 New replacement project shortlist approved by client.

3 September 1999 DTR project application forms obtained from client.

6 September 1999 Site visit appointment contact commenced, allowing for2 week advice protocol.

6 September 1999 Intention to visit advice protocol for AFFA commenced.

8 September 1999 Progress report submitted to client, update report #4submitted.

13 September 1999 Desk Top Review commenced.

22 September 1999 Update report #5 submitted to client.

24 September 1999 First site validation and evaluation data received.

8 October 1999 Last site validation and evaluation data received.

18 October 1999 Draft report submitted to client.

1.4 Management Strategy

1.4.1 Consultation and Co-ordination Arrangements

PPK assumed contractual responsibility for the review, and was the single point ofcontact with AFFA for all contractual matters. The project team and their roles andresponsibilities (including that of specialist sub-consultants) are detailed in Section1.4.4. The project team was co-ordinated via the centrally located Adelaidemanagement team, which maintained contact with the regional team through the useof e-mail and other network based communication facilities.

Similar co-ordination facilities were utilised between the client and the projectmanagement team. The client facilitated discussions between the projectmanagement team and the steering committee. These discussions were held, viaboth telephone conference and in person, as required throughout the duration of thereview.

Fortnightly update reports were issued throughout the project to keep the MD2001project officer up-to-date with the progress of the Review. A detailed progress reportwas also issued in early September, which summarised all of the tasks completed untilthat time.

Assistance with co-ordination of the program with the other NHT Mid Term Reviewswas provided by the NHT Mid Term Review Consultancies Co-ordinator.

Where feasible, all consultation was undertaken in accordance with the consultationprotocols specified by AFFA, which aimed to provide project proponents with at leasttwo weeks notice prior to any consultation.



1.4.2 Steering Committee

The AFFA project officer was Peter Gillard. A small steering committee wasestablished, predominantly comprising AFFA officers, with specialist support asnecessary. The members of the steering committee are listed in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3 Project Steering Committee

Steering Committee Description of Role

Peter Gillard Chair, MD2001, AFFA

Terry Walker Murray-Darling Basin Section, ProgramAdministration, AFFA

Gwenda Bramley / Rachel Gregson NRM Monitoring & Evaluation Section, AFFA

Dominique Benzaken / Neil Hardy EA

1.4.3 Consultants

PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (PPK) was commissioned by AFFA toundertake the Mid Term Review of the MD2001. PPK assumed contractualresponsibility for the review, and was the single point of contact with AFFA for allcontractual matters. All of the specialist sub-consultants (listed in Table 1.4) workedas sub-consultants to PPK.

PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd is a company of multi-disciplinaryprofessionals providing services to a range of public and private sector clients in theenvironmental, mining, transport, water, building and urban development industries.The nature of the services provided by the company places particular emphasis onquality, service, expertise, experience, reliability and professionalism.

1.4.4 Review Team

The organisational structure of the project team that PPK assembled to undertake theMid Term Review of MD2001 is characterised by four key elements:

1. A Project Management Team to co-ordinate the activities of the field teams.

2. A Review Panel to provide comment on the draft reports.

3. A Specialist Evaluation Methodology Team.

4. A Field Team.

Review team members were selected to ensure there were no conflicts of interest inundertaking this consultancy. The roles and responsibilities of each of the core teammembers are detailed in Table 1.4.

Table 1.4 Key Team Members

Management Team Company Role Description of Tasks

Sabina Douglas-Hill PPK,Adelaide

ProjectManager

Overall co-ordination, team leadership,reporting, client liaison.

Julianne Martin &

Angela Noack

PPK,Adelaide

ProjectManage-mentSupport

Project management, budgets, taskreporting, database management,report compilation and editing.



Jason Alexandra Alexandra& Assoc.

TechnicalManager

Direction and guidance of the Reviewprocess in conjunction with the ProjectManagement Team and principalauthor of reports.

EvaluationMethodology Team

Company Description of Role

Dr David Bennett Hassall & Associates Lead the production of an integratedevaluation methodology.

Dr David McClintock Hassall & Associates Assist in the production of an integratedevaluation methodology.

Kathryn Page Hassall & Associates Evaluation Methodology Team Support.

Review Panel Company Description of Role

Terry White Terry White &Associates

Specialist guidance on communityeducation, project evaluation andfreshwater ecosystems.

Representative fromevaluationmethodology team

Hassall & Associates Specialist in evaluation of NRMprograms.

Representative fromproject managementteam

PPK, Adelaide Quality control of process methodology,and outcomes.

Field Team Company Areas Reviewed

Dave Campin PPK, Brisbane Queensland

Guy Hodgson PPK, Sydney New South Wales

Tracey Cheney PPK, Bathurst New South Wales

Brett Lane PPK, Melbourne Victoria

Stephanie Bolt andNathan Zeman

PPK, Adelaide South Australia

Support Staff To assist in the site visits and review in all states within the MDB.

1.4.5 Resources Used

PPK utilised core and support team members located in a network of office facilitiesdistributed across Australia (refer Section 1.4.4). This allowed a national approach tothe review, maximising the locally relevant knowledge and community relevance of theteam members, and reducing time and travel costs.

All offices within PPK are linked by state of the art communications systems andreadily accessible databases, which enabled efficient communication and utilisation ofresources across office boundaries.

Resources and assistance provided by the Commonwealth and utilised by the projectteam throughout the review, included the following:

n Assistance with co-ordination of the program with the other NHT Mid Termreviews (provided by the NHT Mid Term Review Consultancies Co-ordinator);

n Paper copies of a selection of project application forms and continuing projectforms (some final reports);

n Information from the NHT database (Program Administrator);

n Other Program and project related files;



n Copies of other NHT information such as Partnership Agreements and Guidelines;

n State MD2001 contacts, and facilitation to obtain information from the state-basedresources as required;

n Contact lists for other relevant stakeholders and clients;

n Outcomes from recent reviews including Administration of the NHT by DPIE (areport by Hassall and Associates 1998);

n Finalised copy of standard report format; and

n Finalised copy of the standard NHT validation questionnaire, and the standardExcel spreadsheet for submission of the data from the questionnaire.

1.4.6 Who Was Consulted

The project team consulted a range of stakeholders in addition to the review panel,steering committee and MD2001 project officer during the course of the Review.These people included project proponents, stakeholders, researchers, State and LocalGovernment officers and NHT Co-ordinators. All people consulted during the Revieware listed in Appendix 10.



Evaluation Approach & Methodology

2.1 Summary of the Approach

Assessment of progress in relation to the protection or improvement of the health ofthe MDB poses particular problems because of the long time scales involved inecological and cultural processes. As a consequence, the MD2001 Review used abroad range of methods to determine the extent to which the goal and objectives ofthe NHT are being met by the projects and activities that focus on riparian health andintegrated catchment management.

The Review assessed the performance of projects funded under the MD2001initiative, noting that these aim to achieve a sustainable future for the MDB, its naturalsystems and its communities. The Review Team made recommendations on how toimprove the overall effectiveness and efficiency of NHT activities and complementaryinvestments in the MDB.

The MD2001 Review determined, in relation to river systems and catchmentmanagement, the extent to which NHT is making progress towards the stated goalsof:

n stimulating investment and activities in the national interest to achieve theconservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s natural environment;

n the protection and rehabilitation of Australia's natural environment;

n integrating the objectives of environmental protection, sustainable agriculture andnatural resources management consistent with the principles of ecologicallysustainable development; and

n fostering partnerships between the community, industry and all levels ofgovernment.

To ensure that each of these goals was adequately reflected in the assessment eachof the stated goals figured centrally in the evaluation task. This is reflected in theproject's report which addresses:

n Investment value and stimulus — using project analysis and consultation as theprimary tool;

n Environmental protection and rehabilitation — using understanding gained fromthe biophysical sciences;

n Integration — using management stakeholder consultation and ecological theoryto support analysis; and

n Partnership — for each aspect of the Review PPK ensured that full considerationwas given to the value of community – industry – government partnerships.

Chapter

2



Based on the methodology outlined below the Review simultaneously assessed fourinter-related categories of outcomes of the NHT activities, in relation to catchment andriparian management:

n Biophysical outcomes — improved conservation and management of the MDBriver systems, waterways, irrigated agriculture zones and related ecosystems (e.g.wetland, flood plains, riparian zones).

n Capacity building — increased institutional and other capacity to conserve andmanage the MDB river systems and waterways. This included increasedknowledge of waterway management techniques, greater capacity for integratedmanagement of waterways and their catchments, and improved integration ofcommunity industry and government activities etc.

n Cultural outcomes — increased community awareness and education on thevalue of Australia's river systems and waterways and the importance of theirconservation and sustainable management.

n Cost sharing – strengthening of the resource base for communities – based NHT– style projects fully incorporating opportunities for shared investment by allstakeholders.

2.2 Summary of Proposed Methods/Project Stages

The PPK Review, which was staged over a total of 17 weeks, employed acombination of desktop data analysis, site validations and evaluations and non-structured consultation to achieve the fundamental consultancy outcomes. Anextensive data set was compiled and utilised in the interrogation and analysis phase ofthe project.

2.3 Methodology

Ten tasks were required to achieve the objectives stipulated for the project.

2.3.1 Project Inception

This provided an opportunity for the key project team members to meet with the clientand Steering Committee to discuss issues and finalise project details.

An inception meeting was held in Canberra on 9 July 1999 in the offices of AFFA,between Sabina Douglas-Hill (PPK Project Manager), Jason Alexandra (PPKTechnical Director), the client representative and available members of the SteeringCommittee. This meeting was held subsequent to a telephone conference held on 8July 1999. Similar discussions were held in both meetings, however a greaterproportion of the steering committee was present during the former meeting.

The consultancy contract was finalised on 28 July 1999, having been signed by bothparties.

A Scoping Paper was prepared by PPK, at the request of the steering committee. TheScoping Paper provided a revised breakdown of tasks, outcomes, timeframes andresources. The Scoping Paper was submitted to the steering committee for reviewand comment. The final version of the Scoping Paper was issued on 10 August 1999.



2.3.2 Project Selection Criteria and Evaluation Methodology

The development of appropriate project selection criteria and evaluationmethodology was a critical component of this consultancy, as these were the toolsthat allowed the fundamental outcomes to be achieved. The evaluation methodologyteam, led by sub-consultants Hassall and Associates were asked to perform four tasksrelevant to this section. The evaluation methodology was then developed around theoutcomes of these tasks.

The development of appropriate project selection criteria was designed to ensurethat an adequate and unbiased group of projects, representative of the entire range ofprojects funded under the MD2001 Program, were selected for validation. Thefinalised criteria ensured an adequate coverage of the following:

n Geographical location (on a state-by-state basis);

n Size of projects (in terms of NHT funding);

n The type of organisation conducting the project (government or community group);and

n Project type (e.g. on-ground works, planning, education).

The sample was skewed on the request of the client, such that 60% of the projectsover $200,000 were sampled. Overall, 10−20% of projects were sampled(approximately 80 projects).

The final project selection procedure has been detailed in a one-page documentcontained in Appendix 2.

The evaluation methodology was developed to work in conjunction with thestandard Site Validation Form prepared by the NHT. A Program-specific evaluationquestionnaire was prepared, which aimed to ascertain qualitative responses from theproject proponents, in addition to the quantitative responses obtained by the SiteValidation Form.

The evaluation questionnaire was developed on the basis of the project Terms ofReference (refer Chapter 1), the MD2001 Program Logic (refer Table 1.1) and theaims and objectives of both the MD2001 Program and the NHT. The key objectiveswere to:

n Determine the extent to which Program activities have contributed to theachievement of MD2001 and NHT objectives, with emphasis on:- improvement in on-ground outcomes;- enhanced community capacity for change; and- the catalytic effects of capital investment.

n Assess the quality of performance information available and identify requirementsfor on going performance information.

n Address issues of Program improvement, and provide recommendations on howto improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of NHT activities andcomplementary investments.

A copy of the MD2001 specific evaluation questionnaire is contained in Appendix 6.



In addition to the two questionnaires, a summary sheet, or questionnaire wasprepared for the field team members (validators). This questionnaire aimed to obtaina qualitative overall response from each of the validators. The questionnaire requiredeach of the validators to make a comment against each of the terms of reference,based on the overall feeling they obtained from the entire set of site visits conducted.A copy of the validators Questionnaire is contained in Appendix 7.

As part of the evaluation methodology, a Training Package was prepared for theReview field team. The Training Package contains background information regardingthe MD2001 Program and the NHT, as well as details on how to conduct the site visits(including consultation protocols and the correct use of the questionnaires). A copy ofthe Training Package is contained in Appendix 3.

The Evaluation Questionnaire, Training Package and project selection criteria weresubmitted to the steering committee for review and comment, prior to being finalised.

The Steering Committee noted that it would have also been desirable to incorporateprocedures to identify regional problems/differences amongst the projects in theproject selection criteria. However it was considered that the extra time and effortrequired to include this aspect in the project selection criteria may not have beenreflected in the overall outcomes of the Review, and would also have unduly sloweddown the progress of the project.

On the basis of the project selection criteria, a shortlist of 90 projects for field reviewswas generated (including 10 surplus projects). This list was checked to ensure that allproject types and MD2001 outcomes were adequately represented in the sample, andwas then forwarded to the Steering Committee.

The list was refined by the NHT Mid-Term Review consultancies Co-ordinator as eightof the selected projects were invalid due to overlap with concurrent NHT reviews. On31st August (once clarification of State/Commonwealth ID numbers had occurred) theshortlist was forwarded the NHT State Mid-Term Review Co-ordinators forconfirmation of accuracy of project details and contacts.

Further clashes with other project reviews were identified by the Review field teamthroughout the progress of the Review. Some of these were able to be replaced withadditional projects, however due to the tight timeframe and the consultation protocolsrequired, not all of the projects were able to be replaced. The final number of projectsvisited was 76 (refer Task 7).

A second list of 90 projects was selected for desktop review from the initial data usingthe same selection process. The projects selected for the field reviews were removedfrom the total list of MD2001 projects, to allow generation of the shortlist of projects forthe desktop review. This second shortlist was created using the same projectselection criteria as that applied for the field reviews.

Information regarding 81 of these projects was gained from project application formsand entered into a standard Excel validation spreadsheet supplied by the NHT formanipulation and review. The purpose of adding the desktop review data set was toprovide a larger data set with which to conduct research, and to cross compare therelative content of the site visit and application form data.

2.3.3 Establish Evaluation Database

Four separate databases were established in Excel for the recording of data obtainedfrom the project application forms and during the site visits:



n A standard Excel spreadsheet for reporting site visit data from the Standard NHTValidation Questionnaire was supplied by the Commonwealth. The aim of thespreadsheet was to allow all sub-consultants to submit data to the client, andshare data in a common format.

n An Excel spreadsheet was developed to record the results of the PPK EvaluationQuestionnaire.

n A third spreadsheet was established to record relevant project information fromthe project application forms, as part of the Desk Top Review.

n A fourth spreadsheet enabled us to produce a composite of Desk Top Review andSite Validation project data for further analysis.

It was necessary to finalise the evaluation process (Task 2) prior to establishing theabove databases, to provide an understanding of the parameters to be recorded andanalysed.

Utilisation of these databases facilitated the efficient recording of review data andenabled a co-ordinated reporting approach.

2.3.4 Development of Consultation Protocols

Generic consultation protocols had been developed for Commonwealth, States, co-ordinators and community groups, for use in all Program and thematic Reviewsundertaken by all the Review Teams. A number of these protocols were based on therequirements of the client (for example the Site Visit Guidelines provided by AFFA)and included strategies to manage and avert the potential concerns of participants.

All evaluation protocols were developed under the guidance of the SteeringCommittee and the Review Panel, and are detailed in the training package (referAppendix 3). All field officers likely to engage in stakeholder consultation were fullybriefed in the consultation protocols (refer Task 5).

2.3.5 Training in the Evaluation Methodology and Protocols

It was considered essential that all of the field team members who would beconducting the site visits and face-to-face consultations were trained in the evaluationmethodology and consultation protocols.

The training was held via telephone conference on 20 August 1999. The trainingprovided a background to the NHT and the MD2001 Program, and ensured that theteam had a clear understanding of the evaluation methodology, the standardvalidation and evaluation questionnaires, and the consultation protocols. It was alsovital to ensure that a uniform review, documentation, analysis, evaluation andvalidation process was undertaken across the MDB.

Further one-on-one training was subsequently provided to all team members asquestions arose.

2.3.6 Desktop Data Acquisition and Review

A preliminary desktop study was undertaken of all MD2001 projects, as part of theproject selection procedure. This included assessment of project location, size (interms of NHT funding), type (e.g. on-ground works, planning, education) and type oforganisation conducting the project.



This review was undertaken on the basis of information obtained from the NHTProgram Administrator database. The data was transferred into an Excelspreadsheet, to allow summary of the projects features as required. The outputs fromthe spreadsheet were then utilised in conjunction with the agreed project selectioncriteria to enable the selection of a suitable cross-section of projects for field visits.From this review, a total of 90 projects were selected for validation and evaluation,including the desktop review, (see below) and copies of the project application formsfor these sites were obtained from AFFA.

A second shortlist of 80 projects was selected from the initial data, for desktop reviewonly. All available project information was extracted from the project application formsand entered into the evaluation database for manipulation and review. This processwas designed to mimic as closely as possible the site validation (obviously minus theEvaluation questionnaire). Additional fields relating to monitoring and informationdissemination were incorporated into the desktop review spreadsheet as thisinformation was available from the NHT Application forms.

A member of the PPK project team, facilitated the extraction of a large proportion ofthe project application forms from AFFA, and arranged its transfer to PPK Adelaide.Some of the project application forms could not be immediately located and wereultimately sourced from the State NHT Co-ordinators.

Methodology for Analysis and Evaluation of Data

The total data set used in the site validation and desktop reviews consisted of 157projects, which was slightly below the 160 projects outlined in the Scoping Paper. Thisdata set accounts for approximately 15% of the total MD2001 NHT budget for1996−1999 funding period ($163 million 1997−98 NHT Annual Report).

Analysis of the data sets was undertaken in six parts:

Using the Validation Questionnaire:

n Composite site validation and desktop review;n Site validation;n Desktop review; and

Using the Evaluation Questionnaire:

n Quantitative analysis;n Composite of qualitative evaluation comments by topic; and

Using the Validator’s Questionnaire:

n Composite of qualitative responses from Validators against the TOR.

The total list of projects for both desktop review and site evaluation is presented at theend of Chapter 3.

2.3.7 Project Field Reviews and Validation

Following selection of projects during Task 2, and training of the field team (Task 5),field reviews using face-to-face consultations and project validation interviews, and sitevisits were undertaken. Field reviews included evaluation of the achievement of theMD2001 objectives, as well as specific project validation.



The site visits included face-to face consultation with project co-ordinators. Theconsultation and site visits allowed completion of both the validation questionnaireprepared by the NHT and the qualitative evaluation questions developed by theproject team.

Throughout the field evaluation process the PPK Project Management teammaintained close liaison with the field staff, facilitating transfer of data, collaboration ofteam members where appropriate and sharing of information and experiences whichaugmented the process.

All site visits were aimed to be conducted in accordance with the site visit guidelinesprepared by AFFA and the consultation protocols.

The project team aimed to give at least two weeks notice before all site visits and wereaware that State co-ordinators were to be the first point of contact in arranging sitevisits. The NHT Mid-Term Review Consultancies Co-ordinator was advised of allprojects intended to be visited, in order to ensure that the projects were not beingassessed by other NHT Mid-Term Reviews. This iterative process ensured that therewere no site visit duplications and that replacement projects were obtained in all but afew cases in time to fulfil the two week appointment protocol.

Contact details for most of the proponents for the projects selected for site visits weredetained and the shortlist of projects was forwarded by AFFA to the State NHT reviewco-ordinators. Due to delays in obtaining the next approval to contact State NHT co-ordinators, on the basis of State responses to AFFA, the PPK field team memberswere eventually advised to proceed. Contact with State NHT co-ordinatorscommenced, successfully resulting in direct “agreement to proceed” to contact projectproponents and arrange appointments for site visits. As a proportion of the contactadvice provided was obsolete or inaccurate, contact with State NHT co-ordinatorsproved both essential and helpful.

As each of the site visits were completed, the data obtained was transferred into theappropriate databases by the field team members. The data was then forwarded tothe PPK Project Management team for compilation, statistical analysis and review(refer Chapter 3).

2.3.8 Draft Report Preparation and Review by Review Panel

A Draft Evaluation Report was prepared to the style guidelines prepared by theCommonwealth. The report included interpretation of the data obtained during theproject validations and evaluations. It specifically addressed the goals and threeobjectives of the NHT in relation to MD2001, and the key issues contained in theConsultancy Brief. The report also made recommendations for improvement toMD2001 and, to a lesser degree, the NHT.

The Draft Report was supplied to the client both electronically and in unbound hard-copy format (with the exception of Chapter 3 which was provided only in electronicformat).

The review panel reviewed the draft report prior to submission as a final report.

2.3.9 Review of Draft Report by Steering Committee

The Draft Report was reviewed by the Steering Committee and other selected NHTrepresentatives. A composite response to the Draft Report was compiled by theAFFA Project Officer and returned to PPK on 25 October 1999 for incorporation intothe Final Report.



2.3.10 Final Report and Presentation

The Final Report (this report) has been prepared to the agreed formats and all projectfindings will be presented to the Steering Committee at a presentation to be held inCanberra at a time to be arranged.



Information Collection and Analysis

3.1 Introduction

The Mid-Term Review of the MD2001 Program used a combination of desktopstudies, and site evaluations and validations to achieve the fundamental consultancyoutcomes. This has been presented in a logical sequence of analysis, broken into twomajor sections, each with three subsections. The sequence is described as follows:

Site Validation

1. Composite site validation and desktop review data

2. Site validation data

3. Desktop review data

Site Evaluation

1. Quantitative data

2. Qualitative data

3. Combined validator’s comments

Each of these six data sets has been subjected to a set analysis. For the sitevalidation process, each of the three data sets has undergone identical analyses. Inthis manner assessments can be made as to the validity of each process.

All data for the site validation and evaluation has been obtained from projects thathave received NHT funds, under the MD2001 Program, during one or more of the last3 funding years. The projects that were subject to site validation and evaluation variedsignificantly in scope, amount funded, data reporting and the type of stakeholder groupresponsible for project management. A list of all projects reviewed is contained inAppendix 11.

Due to the complexity of the data and the limited number of data sets, the inherentvariability between all the projects has been ignored. The broad-based analysisconducted for the MD2001 Program, whilst applicable for this type of data set,provided effective insight into general trends, which were critical in the development ofProgram recommendations in Chapter 4.

Chapter

3



3.2 Validation Data Assessment

3.2.1 Composite Site Validation and Desktop Review

The composite data set comprises both site validation and desktop review data. Sitevisit data collected from 76 MD2001 projects and desktop review data obtained from81 project applications was compiled into a standard Excel spreadsheet, adapted froma spreadsheet supplied by the Commonwealth. This spreadsheet formed the basis foran analysis addressing the key issues set out in the Terms of Reference. Theanalysis was conducted by posing a number of ‘questions’, then manipulating the dataset in order to generate a quantitative response.

Proportion of MD2001 Projects Reviewed by State

An initial analysis looked at the total distribution of MD2001 projects undergoing thereview process. Numbers of projects reviewed in each State are shown in Figure 3.1.This showed that 40% of projects reviewed were in NSW, 29% in SA, 22% in Victoria,with the final 9% in Queensland.

Figure 3.1 MD2001 Projects Reviewed by State (Composite Data Set)

Proportion of MD2001 Funding by State

An analysis of the total sources of funds for the reviewed projects was performed tocompare NHT funding with other funding sources, and to assess total projectexpenditure across the States.

Figure 3.2 shows the sum of past NHT funding allocated and NHT funding sought,expressed as “total $NHT”. Subsequent graphs showing NHT funding are alsocalculated and expressed in this manner. The data for allocated funding was obtainedfrom data supplied by the Commonwealth, while funding sought was taken from thelatest project applications. State and local funding contributions, expressed as “total$state” and “total $local” respectively, were also obtained from the latest projectapplications. Total State funding comprises all the contributions supplied by Stateauthorities over the life of the projects. Total local funding covers all community groupand local contributions and unspecified “other” contributions over the life of theprojects. State and local contributions included both cash outlays and in-kind labourgoing towards the project employment, operating and capital costs.

63

34

14

45

NSW VIC QLD SA



The total funds, from all sources over the life of MD2001 in the 156 projects reviewedis expected to be $252.5 million. Of this, $117 million are expected to be provided bythe NHT (i.e. approved funds 1996−99 plus funds sought for the remainder of theProgram).

Figure 3.2 shows that the amounts contributed by State and local sources variedwidely between the different States. Local contributions made up a high proportion oftotal project funding in Victoria (61%), NSW (47%), and Queensland (43%), while inSouth Australia contributions were dispersed relatively evenly between local, Stateand NHT sources. The proportion of NHT funding over total project costs is highest inSA, where NHT contributes 46% of total project costs.

The average project expenditure also varied considerably between the States.Projects in Victoria received by far the largest proportion of total funding(approximately 54%), however they constitute only 22% of project numbers. SouthAustralia on the other hand had 29% of total number of MD2001 projects reviewedand only 6% of the total allocated funding.

The highest NHT funding contributions were distributed to projects in NSW andVictoria, which made up approximately 72% of total NHT funding. This NHT fundingaccounts for approximately 22% of total project costs in these States.

Figure 3.2 Source of Funds by State for MD2001 Projects (Composite DataSet)

MD2001 Funding Allocation by Project Outcome

Funding allocations have been categorised according to the NHT’s Key Result Areas(KRAs) in Figure 3.3. The key result areas set out by the NHT are:

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

NSW VIC QLD SA

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

total$statetotal$localtotal$NHT



n Integration and Institutions integrated, co-operative and strategic approaches toinvestment in ecologically sustainable management of land, water, and marineresources and environments.

n Environment biodiversity conservation and improved long-term protection andmanagement of environmental resources including aquatic plants and animals,representative ecosystems and World Heritage Values.

n Sustainable production maintenance of, and improvement to, the sustainableproductive capacity of Australia’s environmental and natural resource base.

n People a community empowered to invest in, and take responsibility for,ecologically sustainable use of its natural resources.

A project may have more than one KRA, as shown below, and in some circumstancesa project may fall into all four of these categories.

1) Integration and Institutions represented in 60% of projects

2) Environment represented in 72% of projects

3) Sustainable Production represented in 58% of projects

4) People represented in 73% of projects

Figure 3.3 indicates that the proportion of NHT funding out of total project expenditurevaried only slightly (%NHT on the graph), from 23% to 26%, over the four KRAs.Integration and Institutions received the highest proportion of NHT funding. Theoverall proportion of NHT funding for the composite data set was 24%, Statecontributions made up 22%, and local contributions made up 54% of total projectcosts. Total funding varied only slightly over projects with Environment, SustainableProduction and KRAs (between $202.7 million and $205.1 million) while it was slightlyless for projects with Integration and Institutions KRAs ($147.3 million).

Figure 3.3 Source of funds for by NHT target outcome MD2001 projects(Composite Data Set)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Inte

grat

ion

+In

stitu

tions

Env

ironm

ent

Sus

tain

able

Pro

duct

ion

Peo

ple

Project type

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Total State$

Total Local$

Total$NHT

Total project$

%NHT



MD2001 Projects that are Part of a Plan

Most of the NHT-supported projects claimed to being conducted as part of an existingplan. In fact, 71% of the projects claimed to be part of some type of existing plan asshown in Figure 3.4. This involvement varied widely, and was generally theimplementation or development of some part, or phase, of a Catchment Plan. Theremaining projects (29%) did not claim to be part of any existing plan. These projectsmay, however, have been a plan in themselves. Half the projects reviewed claimed tobe part of either Catchment Management or Action Plans, a further 11% claimed tobeing undertaken as part of Regional Plans, and the remaining 15% of projectsclaimed to be either part of State plans or ‘other’ plans.

Figure 3.4 Proportion of MD2001 projects which are part of an existing plan(Composite Data Set)

MD2001 Projects that Include Monitoring

A summation of data from the composite data set was conducted to determine theproportion of projects which claim to be conducting monitoring. Monitoring refers tothe systematic collection of information and data for reporting, evaluation and researchpurposes. In some circumstances, a project may have been conducting more thanone type of monitoring. For example, a fish passage project may need to monitorinitial conditions to determine baseline data, before works are carried out, and thenmay continue to conduct long-term monitoring to determine the influence, or impact ofthese works on fish populations. The spreadsheet format used did not however allowfor concise reporting or analysis of multiple monitoring types, and hence the mostpredominant monitoring activity claimed to have been occurring in a project was usedas the basis for this analysis.

Figure 3.5 shows the majority of projects (79.2%) claimed to be conducting some typeof monitoring. The most common monitoring types are those of initial conditions(37%) and monitoring trends (22%). Monitoring activities, long-term impact and othermonitoring types were claimed to have been conducted by 13%, 6% and 2% ofprojects respectively.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cat

chm

ent

man

agem

ent

Reg

iona

l pla

n

Sta

te p

lan

Act

ion

plan

Oth

er

Non

e

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.5 Proportion of MD2001 Projects Conducting Monitoring(Composite Data Set)

MD2001 Projects that Actively Disseminate Results

Figure 3.6 shows the proportion of projects which claim to have been disseminatingtheir findings appropriately, ie as indicated in their communication strategies. Adissemination program was considered to have been developed if the results of aproject, and the lessons learned, were being made available to those who may benefitfrom this knowledge. This may include media reports, newsletters, websites, fielddays and education programs.

The results illustrated in Figure 3.6 indicate that the majority of projects (approximately70%) claim to have carried out a developed dissemination program. A further 10%claim to have only partially disseminated results, while 7% of projects claim to have adissemination program that has not yet been activated. 13% of projects have notprovided sufficient evidence to warrant a set answer and have been classified asunknown.

Figure 3.6 Proportion of MD2001 Projects Actively DisseminatingResults (Composite Data Set)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Initi

alco

nditi

ons

Act

iviti

es

Long

term

impa

ct

Tren

ds

Oth

er

none

Monitoring type

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

not yet partially yes not known

Pro

po

rtio

n fo

pro

ject

s (%

)



Other Organisational and Community Support for MD2001

The agencies or groups, which have been directly involved or supportive of MD2001projects, are shown in Figure 3.7. The groups included relevant stakeholders andorganisations who have been consulted or involved in the development of the project,or have agreed to be involved in its implementation, and those who have contributedto project funding. Involvement and support categories were as follows:

n Landholders;

n Other community;

n Regional/State authority;

n Local government;

n Industry;

n University;

n Schools; and

n Other.

Figure 3.7 shows a high proportion of projects claim to have had involvement by andsupport from landholders, other community groups, and regional and State authorities.Less than a third of projects claim to have had involvement from industry, universitiesand school groups.

Figure 3.7: Types of Organisation Supporting/Involved in MD2001 Projects(Composite Data Set)

Proportion of MD2001 Projects with Post-NHT Plans

The proportion of projects that claim to have developed follow up plans to ensure theresults of the project are maintained when NHT funding ceases is given in Figure 3.8.This analysis sought to determine the level of commitment to project achievements inthe long term, beyond the life of the project funding. The “not known” responses arose

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

L'ho

lder

s

Oth

erco

m

Reg

/S

tate

LG

ovt

Indu

st.

Uni

Sch

ools

Oth

er

Agency providing support/involvement

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



due to the lack of sufficient evidence in the desktop review of project applications tomake a firm judgement.

54% of projects claim to have had either a fully or partially developed a follow on plan,while 17% had no follow on plans developed. The remaining 29% of projects wereclassified as unknown.

Figure 3.8: Proportion of MD2001 projects with developed post-NHTplans (Composite Data Set)

Proportion of MD2001 Funding Sources

Table 3.1 summarises funding sources and amounts for MD2001 projects.

Table 3.1 Source of Funds by Project Size Groups for MD2001 Projects (CompositeData Set)

Funding source/number of projectsFundingamount ($)

NHTFunding96−97

NHTFunding97−98

NHTFunding98−99

TotalNHT

Funding

Totalcosts all

years

TotalState/

territoryfunding

Total localcontrib-utions

Total othercontrib-utions

TotalNHTfundssought

<$10,000 25 7 18 33 7 21 13 4 9$10,001−

$25,0005 14 30 25 8 15 13 3 5

$25,001−

$50,0000 13 19 13 10 14 17 2 11

$50,001−

$100,0000 15 21 33 18 9 17 3 17

$100,001−

$250,0002 17 23 20 22 22 38 3 21

$250,001−

$500,0000 5 14 19 26 16 10 0 14

$500,001−

$1,000,0000 3 6 11 17 4 11 1 12

$1,000,001−

$2,000,0000 0 0 3 27 16 11 0 9

$2,000,001−

$5,000,0000 0 0 0 12 5 6 1 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Developed Partially developed Not developed Not known

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Funding source/number of projectsFundingamount ($)

NHTFunding96−97

NHTFunding97−98

NHTFunding98−99

TotalNHT

Funding

Totalcosts all

years

TotalState/

territoryfunding

Total localcontrib-utions

Total othercontrib-utions

TotalNHTfundssought

>$5,000,000

0 0 0 0 10 0 4 0 0

none 125 83 26 0 0 35 17 140 58Totalfunding ($million)

0.53 8.40 15.85 24.79 252.65 53.27 132.86 4.48 37.26

3.2.2 Site Validation Data Analysis

Site visits were a major component of the review process, allowing for the completionof a validation questionnaire and qualitative evaluation by the consultant. A total of 76site visits were carried out in the review process. Completed site validationquestionnaires were compiled into a standard Excel spreadsheet and analysed usingidentical processes as for the composite data set.

Proportion of MD2001 Projects Validated by State

The number of projects reviewed in the site validation process, as shown in Figure 3.9,was highest in NSW and SA, in which 39% and 30% of sites were reviewed. Theremainder of the sites visited were located in Victoria and Queensland.

Figure 3.9 Number of MD2001 Projects Reviewed Per STATE (Sitevalidation data Set)


Figure 3.10 shows the distribution of State, local and NHT funds for MD2001 projectsby State. NHT funding made up a total of 26% of the total project funding for all sitesreviewed. The NHT proportion of funding was highest in SA (47% of total projectfunding), and was lowest in Victoria, where NHT funding accounted for 16% of totalproject funding. High proportions of local contributions compared to total funding

`

30

15

8

23

NSW VIC QLD SA



occurred in Victoria (60%), NSW (52%) and Queensland (47%). State contributionsaccounted for 21% of total project costs for all site validation review projects.



Figure 3.10 State Funding Distributions for State MD2001 Projects (SiteValidation Data Set)

MD2001 Funding Allocation by Project Key Result Areas

Figure 3.11 represents the distribution of funding according to the NHT’s Key ResultAreas. The number of projects related to each KRA was quite variable, and was notproportionate to the funding allocated to projects with the same KRAs.

1. Integration and Institutions represented in 47% of projects2. Environment represented in 66% of projects3. Sustainable Production represented in 59% of projects4. People represented in 66% of projects

The percentages add up to >100% indicating that many projects have outcomes inmore than one KRA.

In particular projects with Integration and Institutions outcomes received a lowproportion of total funding (29%) yet accounted for 47% of projects. Sustainableproduction projects obtained 85% of total funding. The proportion of NHT funding overthe total project costs was higher for projects with Integration and Institution outcomes(37% of total funds) than for projects with broad outcomes in other KRAs.

Figure 3.11 Sources of Funds by NHT KRAs for MD2001 Projects (Sitevalidation data set)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NSW VIC QLD SA

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

total$NHTtotal$localtotal$state

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Inte

grat

ion

+In

stitu

tions

Env

ironm

ent

Sus

tain

able

Pro

duct

ion

Peo

ple

Funding source

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

total$localtotal$statetotal$NHTtotal project$ %NHT

Pro

po

rtion

NH

T$ o

f to

tal pro

ject $ (%)




Figure 3.12 shows the proportion of projects in the site validation sample that claimedto be part of an existing plan. 40% of projects claimed to be undertaken as part of anAction Plan, and 29% claimed to be part of an existing Catchment Plan. 10% ofprojects did not claim to be part of an existing plan, but may have been themselves aplan. The remaining 24% of projects claimed by being undertaken as part of existingRegional and State Plans, or ‘other’ types of plan.

Figure 3.12 Proportion of MD2001 Projects which Claimed to be Part of anExisting Plan (Site validation data set)

MD2001 Projects that Include Monitoring

The proportion of projects that claim to have been conducting some type of systematicmonitoring or data collection is shown in Figure 3.13. As in the composite data set,the most predominant monitoring activities being undertaken form the basis for thisanalysis. A total of 45% of projects in the site review analysis claimed to be monitoringinitial conditions. Another 27% claimed to be undertaking monitoring of trends, and 20% of projects did not claim to be conducting any monitoring activities. The remaining8% of projects claimed to be monitoring activities or conducting ‘other’ types ofmonitoring.

Figure 3.13 Proportion of MD2001 Projects that Claimed to be ConductingMonitoring (Site validation data set)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Cat

chm

ent

man

agem

ent

Reg

iona

l pla

n

Sta

te p

lan

Act

ion

plan

Oth

er

Non

ePro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Existing plan type

0

10

20

30

40

50

Initialconditions

Activities Trends Other none

Monitoring type

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f pro

ject

s (%

)




The proportion of site review projects that claimed to have an active program ofdissemination of results, as indicated in their communication strategies, is shown inFigure 3.14. The majority of projects (72%) claim to have been actively disseminatingfindings, while 13% claim to have only partially disseminated results, and 14% ofprojects had not carried out any dissemination of results.

Figure 3.14 Proportion of MD2001 Projects Actively DisseminatingResults (Site validation data set)

Other Organisational and Community Support for MD2001

Figure 3.15 shows the organisations, groups and agencies which have been providingsupport or have been involved in project development. A high proportion of projectshad gained support or involvement from landholders and regional/State authorities(both involved in 79% of projects). Other community groups and local governmentswere involved in 57% and 43% of projects respectively. Industries were activelyinvolved in 32% of site review projects, while universities and schools were involved in21% and 25% of projects respectively.

Figure 3.15 Types of Organisation Supporting or Involved in MD2001Projects (Site validation data set)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

not yet partially yes

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

L'ho

lder

s

Oth

er c

om

Reg

/ Sta

te

LG

ovt

Indu

st.

Uni

Sch

ools

Oth

er

Agency providing support

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)




A final query for the site review data set was to determine whether projects haddeveloped follow-on plans to ensure the project continued past NHT’s funding period.The site visit data in Figure 3.16 shows that 27% of projects claimed to have follow-onplans in place, while a further 25% of projects claimed to have partially developedfollow-on plans. A total of 48% of projects had not developed any follow-on plans forwhen NHT funding ceases.

Figure 3.16 Proportion of MD2001 Projects with Developed Follow-onPlans (Site validation data set)


Table 3.2 summarises funding sources and amounts for MD2001 projects validated aspart of the Review.

Table 3.2 Sources of Funds by Project Size Groups for MD2001 projects (sitevalidation data set)

Funding amount ($) NHTFundin

g96−97

NHTFunding97−98

NHTFunding98−99

TotalNHT

Funding

Totalcosts all

years

TotalState/

territoryfunding

Totallocal

contrib-utions

Totalother

contrib-utions

TotalNHTfundssought

<$10,000 11 2 5 15 2 11 3 2 3$10,001−$25,000 2 6 20 11 3 7 9 1 3$25,001−$50,000 0 7 6 9 4 7 7 0 5$50,001−$100,000 0 7 11 15 12 5 11 1 11$100,001−$250,000

0 7 11 10 13 11 16 3 8

$250,001−$500,000

0 4 6 9 13 5 3 0 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Developed Partially developed Not developed

Proportion of projects



$500,001−$1,000,000

0 3 3 4 5 1 9 1 7

$1,000,001−

$2,000,0000 0 0 3 14 9 3 0 3

$2,000,001−

$5,000,0000 0 0 0 6 2 3 1 0

>$5,000,000 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0none 63 40 14 0 0 18 10 67 28Total funding($ million)

0.05 5.44 7.80 13.29 116.81 23.98 59.61 4.23 15.70

3.2.3 Desktop Review Data Analysis

A total of 81 projects were analysed as part of the desktop review. Informationregarding these projects was collected from project applications and transferred intothe evaluation database. This data set was then subjected to the identical analysesperformed on the composite and site validation data sets.

Proportion of MD2001 Projects Reviewed by State

The distribution of desktop review sites was similar to that of the site validation review.This is partly a function of the project selection criteria. 41% of projects were situatedin NSW, 27% in SA, 24% in Victoria and 8% of projects reviewed were located inQueensland.

Figure 3.17 Number of MD2001 Projects Reviewed Per State (Desktopreview data set)


Victoria received the greatest amount of total project funding, which was largely theresult of a high local contribution. The total project funding in Victoria was 63% of thetotal for all desktop review projects. Of this, 61% was locally contributed. Other Stateshad lower proportions of local funding. NSW accounted for 19% of total projectfunding, Queensland 13% and SA received 5% of the total funding (compared to 27%of project numbers).

The proportion of NHT funding compared to total funding in each State was highest inSA (44%), followed by NSW (39%), Queensland (31%) and Victoria (18%). State

33

19

6

22

NSW VIC QLD SA



contributions made up approximately 23% of overall project funding for the desktopreview.

Figure 3.18 Funding Distributions for State MD2001 Projects (Desktopreview data set)

MD2001 Funding Allocation by the NHT’s Key Result Areas

Figure 3.19 shows the distribution of funding according to the NHT’s key result areas.The amount of projects oriented to each KRA varied between 53% and 70%. Totalfunding for projects with the four KRAs had less variation, with the highest fundedprojects, those with People outcomes, receiving approximately 10% more fundingthan for all projects with sustainable production outcomes.

1. Integration and Institutions represented in 65% of projects

2. Environment represented in 70% of projects

3. Sustainable production represented in 53% of projects

4. People represented in 63% of projects

As was found in the site validation sample, the proportion of NHT funding over totalproject funds did not show much variation between the NHT’s KRAs. NHTcontributions varied between 21.4% and 23.9%, according to the KRA. The lowestNHT component was for sustainable production projects while the highest NHTfunding component was for projects with people outcomes, which also received thehighest amount of local funding.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

NSW VIC QLD SA

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

total$statetotal$localtotal$NHT



Figure 3.19 Funding Allocations for MD2001 Projects (Desktop reviewdata set)


Figure 3.20 shows the proportion of projects that claimed to be undertaken as part ofan existing plan. Almost half (48%) of projects were not part of an existing plan. 15%claimed to be part of a catchment management plan, 12% claimed to be part of anAction plan, 9% claimed to be part of a Regional plan, and a further 15% of projectsclaimed to be undertaken as part of ‘other’ types of plan.

Figure 3.20 Proportion of MD2001 Projects which are part of an Existing Plan(Desktop review data set)

Figure 3.21 shows all desktop review projects that claimed to be a plan in themselves,as opposed to being part of an existing plan. This analysis was not possible in the sitereview due to limitations in spreadsheet applications. However, the information wasavailable from project applications and was added into the original standard Excelspreadsheet for analysis. Only 38% of projects claimed to be a plan (Figure 3.21),and of these, most were water management plans.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Inte

grat

ion

+In

stitu

tions

Env

ironm

ent

Sus

tain

able

Pro

duct

ion

Peo

ple

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($

mill

ion

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

total$local

total$state

total$NHT

total project$

%NHT

NH

Tfunding as a proportion o

f total p

roject co

sts (%)

Project type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cat

chm

ent

man

agem

ent

Reg

iona

l pla

n

Sta

te p

lan

Act

ion

plan

Oth

er

Non

e

Pro

po

rtio

n f

o p

roje

cts

(%)

Existing plan type



Figure 3.21 Proportion of MD2001 Projects which Claimed to be a Plan(Desktop review data set)

MD2001 Projects that Included Monitoring

Figure 3.22 shows the proportion of MD2001 projects in the desktop review whichclaimed to be undertaking monitoring. A total of 58% of desktop review projects hadevidence of conducting some type of monitoring, with 30% not carrying out anymonitoring and a further 12% considered ‘unknown’, in that there was no evidence tosuggest they were or were not conducting monitoring. The most common monitoringactivities were those of initial conditions (26%) and activities (21%). A further 10% ofprojects claimed to be monitoring trends, and 1% claimed to be conducting ‘other’types of monitoring.

Figure 3.22 Proportion of MD2001 Projects which Claimed to be ConductingMonitoring (Desktop review data set)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Initi

alco

nditi

ons

Act

iviti

es

Tren

ds

Oth

er

Non

e

Not

kno

wn

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Monitoring type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Edu

catio

n

Pro

pert

ym

anag

emen

t

Wat

erm

anag

emen

t

Sal

iinity

man

agem

ent

Bio

dive

rsity

Oth

er

Non

ePro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Plan type




Figure 3.23 shows the proportion of MD2001 projects that claimed to have a programto disseminate findings as determined in the desktop review. A total of 67% ofdesktop review projects had proposed an active program of results disseminationoutlined within their communications strategies. As this information was obtained fromproject applications, it was uncertain as to whether these projects had implementedthese dissemination plans. A further 6% of projects had not fully developed theirdissemination plans and have been classified as ‘partially’ developed. The remaining16% of projects had not provided any evidence in the project applications to supportyes or no confirmation.

Figure 3.23 Proportion of MD2001 Projects that Claimed to have a Programto Disseminate Findings (Desktop review data set)

Other Organisational and Community Support for MD2001 Projects

The majority of projects in the desktop review claimed to have support or involvementfrom landholders, other community groups, State authorities and local government, asshown in Figure 3.24. Industries have provided support/involvement in 26% ofprojects, school groups are involved in 19% and universities are involved in only 6% ofprojects.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

partially yes not known

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.24 Sources of MD2001 project support/involvement (Desktop reviewdata set)


Figure 3.25 shows that over half the projects in the desktop review had proposedeither fully developed or partially developed follow-on plans for when NHT fundingceases. Only 3% had not developed any follow-on plans, while 41% have notprovided sufficient evidence in regards to this analysis.

Figure 3.25 Proportion of MD2001 Projects with Developed Follow-onPlans (Desktop review data set)

0102030405060708090

100

L'ho

lder

s

Oth

erco

m

Reg

/ Sta

te

LG

ovt

Indu

st.

Uni

Sch

ools

Oth

er

Agency providing support

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Not developed Partiallydeveloped

Developed Not known

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)




Table 3.3 summarises funding sources and amounts for MD2001 projects examinedas part of the desktop review.

Table 3.3 Funding Allocations for MD2001 Projects (Desktop review data set)

Funding source/number of projects

Funding amount($)

NHTFunding

96−97

NHTFunding

97−98

NHTFunding

98−99

TotalNHT

Funding

Totalcosts

allyears

TotalState/

territoryfunding

Totallocal

contrib-utions

Totalother

contrib-utions

Total NHTfunds

sought

<$10,000 14 5 13 18 5 10 10 2 6

$10,001−$25,000 3 8 10 14 5 8 4 2 2

$25,001−$50,000 0 6 13 4 6 7 10 2 6

$50,001−$100,000 0 8 10 18 6 4 6 2 6

$100,001−$250,000 2 10 12 10 9 11 22 0 13

$250,001−$500,000 0 1 8 10 13 11 7 0 6

$500,001−

$1,000,000

0 0 3 7 12 3 2 0 5

$1,000,001−

$2,000,000

0 0 0 0 13 7 8 0 6

$2,000,001−

$5,000,000

0 0 0 0 6 3 3 0 1

>$5,000,000 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0

none 62 43 12 0 0 17 7 73 30

Total funding($ million)

0.49 2.96 8.04 11.49 135.84 29.30 73.24 0.25 21.56

3.2.4 Desktop Review – Fish Rehabilitation Projects

To date, sixteen projects have received funding under MD2001 specifically for fishprotection, rehabilitation or management. Of the sixteen funded projects, twelve arecentred upon individual regions or states and four are nationally oriented. The projectswere all commissioned directly to state and federal agriculture and natural resourceagencies, with the exception of one national project, which is being conducted by theAustralian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics.

The sixteen projects were allocated NHT funding in the 1998-99 funding period to avalue exceeding $2.7 million. This represents approximately 10.9% of total NHTfunding for all MD2001 projects in the Site Validation and Desktop Review, andapproximately 0.02% of the total NHT funding, totalling $163 million, committed to theMD2001 program between1997-98 and 2000-01. State governments have alsocontributed significant funding and resources to these projects, but the exactproportion of funding from the various bodies is not known. The data available,however, from the original NHT application forms for the sixteen fish rehabilitationprojects has been summarised in Figure 3.25a.



Figure 3.25a: Proportional contribution by NHT and State government infish rehabilitation projects

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

planning w orks on w ater education

Project type

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Total State ($)

Total NHT ($)

Total Project ($)

% NHT

Pro

po

rtion

NH

T fu

nd

ing

of to

tal pro

ject costs (%

)

Of the sixteen projects being partially funded by NHT seven are being conducted inVictoria, principally by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment(DNRE), thereby commanding the largest proportion of funds (see Figure 3.25b)exceeding $1.5 million. The next highest proportion of funds, totaling approximately$780,000, have been committed to national projects that largely involve thedevelopment of fish management plans, particularly in the area of Carp control. Twolarge projects funded in Queensland to use biodiversity modelling and thedevelopment of riparian management guidelines to enhance native fish habitats.

Figure 3.25b: Proportional contribution by NHT and State government infish rehabilitation projects by State or Territory

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

NSW VIC QLD ACT National

Fu

nd

ing

allo

cati

on

($)

Total Project ($)

Total NHT ($)

Total State ($)



Of the sixteen projects, ten involve strategic planning, five incorporate an on-waterworks program and one involves economics-based education. All the projectsreviewed, however, have involved a certain level of strategic planning, focussedprimarily on biodiversity (75%), water management (13%) or education (12%) (seeFigure 3.25c).

Figure 3.25c: Types and percentage of project planning for fishrehabilitation projects

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Education Water management Biodiversity

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f pro

ject

s (%

)

Type of project planning

All the projects reviewed have demonstrated a communication strategy and aim todisseminate project findings and results widely. Each of the projects directlyaddresses one or two of the NHT’s KRAs, and as a whole, the projects address allfour KRAs, except ‘People’. The greater emphasis placed therefore on ‘Integrationand Institutions’, ‘Environment’ and ‘Sustainable Production’ is possibly a reflection ofthe emphasis given to planning in most of the sixteen projects and their being largelydriven by State and Federal government agencies. The most common KRAs were‘Integration and Institutions’ and ‘Environment’, which were addressed by 88% of thefish rehabilitation projects.

3.3 Evaluation Data Assessment

The process of site validation, undertaken by field team members in each State,involved completion of two separate questionnaires: a Validation Questionnairedeveloped by the NHT, and an Evaluation Questionnaire developed by the PPKReview Team.

The information collected for the Validation Questionnaire was primarily quantitative,focussing on financial status, output data and performance information (assummarised in the previous section). The information collected for the EvaluationQuestionnaire was a balanced combination of quantitative data and qualitative‘perception’ based commentary from the project stakeholders. The EvaluationQuestionnaire aimed to generate further insight into the various factors that resulted ina project generating outcomes that may or may not have met the objectives ofMD2001.



The quantitative data from the Evaluation Questionnaire were combined and analysedby question number. The qualitative commentary from the project stakeholders wascollated, summarised and tabulated by question number (refer Table 3.4).

At the conclusion of all site visits, each member of the field team was required tocomplete a Validator’s Questionnaire, which required a summarised assessment ofMD2001 outcomes against the established Terms of Reference. Information from thevarious questionnaires was also collated for analysis.

Overall, the evaluation data for MD2001 has been analysed and presented in threeseparate parts:

1. Quantitative data (presented graphically by question number);2. Qualitative data (summarised by question number); and3. Combined validator’s comments (summarised against Terms of Reference).

A template of the Validator’s Questionnaire is contained in Appendix 7. The completespreadsheet of collated data from all the Evaluation Questionnaires is provided inAppendix 8. Collated and summarised comments from Field Team Members againstthe Terms of Reference are given in Appendix 9.

3.3.1 Quantitative Data Results

Inputs

Figure 3.27 shows that just over a half of all projects had a single stakeholder. Therewas a clear majority of community-based projects as shown in Figure 3.26.

About 20% of the projects claim to have diverged from their original NHT budgets(Figure 3.28), and about a half of these claimed to have obtained NHT approval for thedivergence (Figure 3.29). Thus, some 10% of projects had an unapproved budgetdivergence.

Figure 3.26 Stakeholder Involvement in MD2001 Projects (Question 4)

Types of stakeholder involvement in MD2001 projects

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Community LocalGovernment

CommericalOrganisations

Other

Types of stakeholders

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.27 Stakeholder Involvement in MD2001 Projects (Question 4)

Figure 3.28 Has there been Divergence from the Submitted Budget?(Question 7)

Single and multi stakeholder involvement in MD2001 projects

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Single stakeholder Multi stakeholder No data

Budget divergence

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Proportion of MD2001 projects for which there has been a divergence from the submitted budget

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Divergence No divergence No data

Budget divergence

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.29 If there has been Divergence from the Submitted Budget, hasthis been Approved? (Question 8)

Outputs and Outcomes

Output and outcome characteristics of the surveyed MD2001 projects were addressedin questions 9 to 19 of the evaluation questionnaire. The results are shown inFigures 3.30 to 3.40. Projects were approximately equally divided between those withsingle and those with multiple outcomes (Figure 3.30).

Almost 60% of the projects claimed to have initiated new work and almost 50%claimed to have catalysed local action. Another 30% had led to ongoing activities, and30% to accelerated environmental action (Figure 3.31). These percentages sum togreater than 100% because some of the projects have multiple outcomes(Figure 3.30). Also notable, was that over two thirds of the projects claimed to addresscauses rather than symptoms (Figure 3.46).

It was found that around 90% of the projects had outputs or outcomes which wereperceived to be measurable and achievable (Figure 3.32), while 50% of the projectsreported that some further use had been made of their outputs (Figure 3.33).

There was often a difference between the group of people who had been involved inplanning the project and the group involved in implementation, with only 35% of theinitial planners having a high level of subsequent involvement (Figure 3.34).

Generally it is claimed that there has been wider interest in the outcomes of projects(Figure 3.35).

Improvement in the riverine ecosystem was perceived in about 40% of the projects(Figure 3.36). However, only a minority of MD2001 projects (<30%) claimed to haveled to changed land use, as shown in Figure 3.37.

It was found that best management practices had only been implemented in about30% of the projects (Figure 3.38) and less than 30% of projects claimed to haveincorporated property management planning (Figure 3.39) in the project.

Proportion of MD2001 projects that have a divergence from the submitted budgefor which approval has been

given

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Divergenceapproved

Divergence notapproved

No data

Budget divergence approval

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Just over 30% of the projects were identified as having unintended outcomes(Figure 3.40); these unintended outcomes were mainly favourable (refer Table 3.4 fordetails.

Figure 3.30 What has NHT Funding Done? (Question 9) Single and MultipleOutcomes from NHT Funding

Figure 3.31 What has NHT Funding Done? (Question 9) Types of Outcomesfrom NHT Funding

Single and multiple outcomes from NHT funding provided to MD2001 projects

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Single outcome Multiple outcomes No data

Outcome

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Types of outcomes generated from NHT funding provided to MD2001 projects

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Initiated newwork

Catalyzedlocal action

Expandedongo ingactivities

Speeded upprocesses

Other

Types of project outcomes

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.32 Are the Desired Outputs and Outcomes Measurable andAchievable? (Question 10)

Figure 3.33 Have the Project Outputs been Used by the Group?(Question 11)

Proportion of MD2001 projects for which outputs and outcomes appear measurable and achievable

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No No data

Outputs measurable and achievable?

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Extent to which project outputs have been used by MD2001 project proponents

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

High Moderate Low Unknow n No data

Use of project outputs

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.34 To What Extent were those Involved in Implementation Involvedwith Planning? (Question 12)

Figure 3.35 Has there been Wider Interest or Uptake of the Project results?(Question 13)

Extent of participative planning in MD2001 projects (that have a planning component)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

High Moderate Low Not applicable

Participative planning

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Proportion of MD2001 projects for which there is wider interest or uptake of project outcomes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Wider interest No w ider interest No data

Interest in project outcomes

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.36 Have there been Improvements to Riverine Ecosystems?(Question 14)

Figure 3.37 Has there been any Change in Land Use as a Consequence ofthis Project? (Question 16)

Proportion of MD2001 projects for which a perceived outcome is riverine ecosystem improvement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No Insufficientdata

No data

Riverine ecosystem improvement

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Proportion of MD2001 projects that have resulted changed land use

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Yes No Not applicable

Changed land use

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.38 Have best management practices been implemented?(Question 17)

Figure 3.39 Has Property Management Planning been a Component of thisProject? (Question 18)

Proportion of MD2001 projects in which best management practices have been implemented

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No Not applicable / nodata

Best management practices

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Proportion of MD2001 projects that incorporated property management planning

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No Not applicable / nodata

Property management planning

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.40 Have there been any Unintended Outcomes, Good or Bad?(Question 19)

Project Types

Almost 60% of projects were multiple project types and about 37% were single projecttypes (Figure 3.41). Figure 3.42 shows that there was a fairly even spread of projectsbetween types involving inventory and planning, works on land, and staffing andeducation projects, with a smaller proportion involving works on water. Once again,the summation of the types of MD2001 projects is greater than 100% due to therebeing multiple project types (Figure 3.41).

Figure 3.41 What Type of Project is This? (Question 21)

Proportion of MD2001 projects for which there were unintended outcomes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No No data

Unintended outcomes

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Single and multiple MD2001 project types

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Single Multiple No data

Type



Figure 3.42 What Type of Project is This? (Question 21)

Project History

The majority of the MD2001 projects validated had no previous history (Figure 3.43).Therefore it is fair to assume that these projects were a direct result of the creation ofthe NHT. Amongst the 30% that reported some previous history, half were startedwithin the last four years (Figure 3.44).

Figure 3.43 Has the Project a Previous History? (Question 22)

Proportion of MD2001 projects that have a previous history

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No No data

Previous project history

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)

Types of MD2001 projects

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Inventory andplanning

Works on water Works on land Staffing, teachingand education

Type

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.44 How Many Years did the Project Exist Prior to NHT Funding?(Question 23)

Additional Questions

Almost two-thirds of the project proponents raised issues for improvement of theMD2001 program (Figure 3.45). These issues are detailed in Table 3.4. It wasgenerally perceived that MD2001 projects were attacking causes rather thansymptoms (Figure 3.46).

Figure 3.45 Did this Site Visit Raise Issues for Program Improvement?(Question 28)

Number of years MD2001 projects have existed prior to NHT funding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 - 4 years 5 - 8 years Unknow n

Number of years

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

wit

h p

revi

ou

s h

isto

ry (

%)

Proportion of MD2001 projects that raised issues for Program improvement

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes No No data

Issues for Program improvement

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)



Figure 3.46 Did this Project Attack Symptoms Rather than Causes?(Question 29)

3.3.2 Qualitative Data Results

The data from validator’s Evaluation Questionnaires relating to individual projects havebeen summarised against their respective questions in Table 3.4. The full responsesare contained in Appendix 8. Where there is a reference to the quantitative evaluation,refer to Section 3.3.1.

Table 3.4 Summary of Responses from Validator’s Evaluation Questionnaire

Question Summarised Data

Inputs

Q4 Who is involved in this project (e.g.community, local government,commercial organisations)?

Refer to quantitative evaluation.

Q5 Could there be additional support? Some additional support could be provided by Stateagencies, Waterwatch and, in irrigation relatedprojects, by water authorities (e.g. SA Water).Refer to quantitative evaluation.

Q7 Has there been any divergencefrom the submitted budget?

Evidence suggests that a significant number ofbudget divergences were in part due to thedifference in the amount of funding originally appliedfor and the amount approved by the NHT. Thereduced level of funds, sometimes allocated by NHTto a rigid set of activities, results in the necessaryeffort of altering the scope of work which conflictswith the resources available. Refer to quantitativeevaluation.

Proportion of MD2001 projects that were perceived to attack symptoms rather than causes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attacking symptoms Attacking causes No data

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f p

roje

cts

(%)




Q8 If there has been a divergence hasthis been approved?

There is evidence to suggest that some projectproponents are unaware of any establishedmechanisms for discussing or seeking approval forchanges in work scope and budget. By contrast,effective networking by the SA co-ordinator forMD2001 has created a well utilised communicationchannel through which approval can be readilysought for funding divergences. Refer toquantitative evaluation.

Q9 What has the NHT funding done(Initiated new work, speeded upprocesses, expanded ongoingactivities, catalyzed local action)


Outputs and Outcomes

Q10 Are the desired outputs andoutcomes measurable andachievable?

Many projects are certainly measurable, but there isa general lack of strategic, effective baseline datacollection and ongoing monitoring to determine if theoutcomes are being achieved. The outcomes,although mostly achievable, may take many years ordecades to be realised and therefore this question isbeing asked prematurely. Refer to quantitativeevaluation.

Q11 How have project outputs beenused by the group?

At this stage limited project outputs have restrictedthe amount of utilisation by each group. Refer toquantitative evaluation.

Q12 If the project is a planning exercise,to what extent were those involvedin implementation involved with theplanning?


Q13 Has there been a wider interest, oreven take up of the project'sresults?

Some MD2001 projects have resulted in thedevelopment of new community and landholdergroups (including Landcare) or expansion of existingones. A number of projects have also resulted innew NHT funding applications from both other localgroups and the original project stakeholders. Referto quantitative evaluation.

Q14 Have there been observableimprovements to riverineecosystems?

Many projects cite potential improvements to riverineecosystems, however, these improvements(particularly those related to ecosystem developmentand water quality) may take years or decades to bemeasurable. Refer to quantitative evaluation.

Q15 If you have improved a riverineenvironment, what measures haveyou used to validate thisimprovement?

Ad hoc monitoring has been undertaken bycommunity based groups. This is usually restrictedto visual monitoring, Waterwatch monitoring orphoto-points. Those projects which have significantinvestment or involvement by State agencies or LAPgroups appear to benefit from technical support andequipment and therefore have developed andundertaken more rigorous monitoring schemes. Aproportion of sites visited appeared to use visualassessment in determining water quality orecological changes. There is generally not sufficientexpertise, resources or individual confidence toconduct statistically meaningful monitoring.

Q16 Has there been any change in landas a consequence of this project?





Q17 If best management practices havebeen implemented/ advocated,describe them.

Observations were made of best practice in a rangeof activities including grazing control, farm forestry,erosion control, wetland rehabilitation, irrigationmanagement and property planning. However, theclaims of best practice are mostly perception basedas there were few clear indications of baselines orbest practice standards in land management andriparian health activities. Exceptions are Programssuch as Waterwatch and Rivercare IrrigationEducation which are regarded as best practice.Otherwise there is ad hoc understanding andadoption of best practice.

Q18 Has this project involved PropertyManagement Planning?


Q19 List any unintended outcomes(good and bad)?

Overall, the unexpected yet positive outcomes fromMD2001 projects have been increased interest,participation and technical knowledge within schools,landholder and community groups. The NHTfunding has also unlocked unexpected or elevatedsources of in-kind technical and financial supportfrom some local governments, businesses and Stateagencies.

The negative outcomes ranged across a lack ofsynergy between different NHT funded programs,the amount of training and education required todrive projects, the poor results that can beexperienced with direct seeding and the consistentover-engineering of water control structures forriparian and wetland projects.

Q21 What sort of Project is this(Inventory and planning, works onwater, land works, staffing, teachingand education)?


Project History

Q22 Has the Project a previous history? Refer to quantitative evaluation.

Q23 How many years has this projectrun? (before NHT funds)

Refer to Appendix 8

Q24 How many years will your projectrun?

Refer to Appendix 8

Q25 How far through is your project? Refer to Appendix 8

Q26 What was the previous level ofinvestment / inputs?

Refer to Appendix 8

Q27 What were the sources of theprevious investment?

Refer to Appendix 8

Additional Questions

Q28 If this site visit raised issues forProgram Improvement, pleasedescribe.

There was an extensive amount of feedbackprovided by project proponents on the need forMD2001 Program improvement, as follows:

1. Substantial delays in receiving NHT funds issignificantly compromising the success of manyprojects that rely upon biophysical factors andsustained community enthusiasm and effort;

2. There is insufficient feedback provided by NHTon the reasons why only certain components of




the original project applications were funded,.This does not allow proponents to improve theirfollow up applications or to better target theirproject objectives;

3. The NHT application forms are confusing forapplicants and the reporting criteria do notadequately reflect the range of worksundertaken in a majority of projects;

4. The NHT requirements for effective monitoringand data collection (for reporting purposes) areunrealistic for community based groups to meetwithout technical support from regional or Stateagencies;

5. The amount of paperwork required from projectproponents by NHT is a burden on numerouscommunity groups;

6. There is insufficient or ineffectivecommunication from NHT relating to changes infunding guidelines. This has created confusionand resentment;

7. The distribution of funds by NHT could be moreeffectively funneled through a regional body toensure that on-ground works coincide with localaction plans and catchment plans;

8. The ongoing annual application process leads toperceptions of reduced funding security whichcan result in reduced project commitment.

Q29 Was the project attackingsymptoms rather than causes?


Q30 What evidence was there ofenhancement of communitycapacity to change?

It was generally perceived that there was minimalevidence to suggest that 'community' changeoccurred outside of the immediate groups involved inproject planning, monitoring and on-ground works.In some projects there was evidence of increasedinvolvement of schools, community and landholdersin project committees and work teams. The greatestevidence of changed attitudes and actions inMD2001 projects was observed amongst irrigatorgroups. There appears to be a reasonable increasein the number of irrigators undertaking educationcourses and participating in water use monitoring.However, these groups are subject to increasedpressure to improve irrigation efficiency throughfinancial and statutory requirements.

Q31 What important messages camefrom discussions withstakeholders?

Many of the important messages from stakeholdersrelated directly to the need for Program improvementas summarised in Q28. Other messages related byproject proponents and general stakeholdersincluded:

1. The difficulty faced by project proponents inmaintaining community enthusiasm over thelonger term;

2. The critical importance of the planning phase inNHT funded projects;

3. The conflict of interest arising from the use ofLocal Action Planning (LAP) committees as theLocal Assessment Panel for NHT fundingapplications. It is considered that this mayrestrict the chance of success for applicants thatexist outside of the LAP structure;




4. The critical need for proponents to plan forlonger term funding and human resources tocarry a project past the life of NHT support. Thisis not being done adequately in a majority ofprojects;

5. The perception of some communities that NHTis a source of investment for individuallandholders rather than an agent for generatingwider community involvement in environmentalprojects.

3.3.3 Validator’s Comments

The collated responses from the Validator’s Questionnaires have been summarisedbelow. It is important to note that the comments reflect only a randomly selectedsample of MD2001 projects from each State and may not necessarily reflect theoverall Program status.

The validator’s comments are summarised beneath each of nine questions, whichrelate to the Program’s Terms of Reference. The complete set of Validator’sComments is presented in Appendix 9.

1. How appropriate are the MD2001 Program objectives in meetingstakeholder needs?

The Program objectives were generally perceived to be well focussed and highlyappropriate in meeting stakeholder needs. The stakeholders of a highly varied mix ofprojects were actively addressing the MD2001 objectives. It could however be saidthat stakeholders had been able to interpret and act upon MD2001 Programobjectives in a way that better met their project needs.

2. How appropriate is the mix of projects funded under the MD2001 Program?

Overall, there was perceived to be an appropriate mix of projects funded under theMD2001 Program. The types of projects that have received funds, include salinitymanagement, wetland rehabilitation, irrigator education, catchment planning,groundwater drainage and riparian management. In New South Wales, however, theProgram focus appeared to be skewed towards salinity.

The mix of organisational types to receive funding was also deemed appropriate,although, in New South Wales the projects targeted for validation were mostlyundertaken by large non-government organisations such as Irrigation Trusts andGreening Australia.

On a different level, there appeared to be an appropriate mix of projects involvingplanning, monitoring and on ground works. In particular, the planning process, oneither a local or catchment level, was seen as a key activity to be funded withinnumerous MD2001 projects in South Australia. In Queensland, an area of Programfunding that was deemed inadequate was the monitoring and assessment of projectoutputs, such as water quality and ecological health.



3. Comment on the linkage between outputs and outcomes, particularly whenthese are of a long-term nature.

There were numerous projects that demonstrated strong ‘on ground’ linkage betweenproject outputs and environmental outcomes. For example, a project at BrookongCreek, New South Wales, saw the installation of two gross pollutant traps (GPT),which collected fine sediment, animal faeces, and general rubbish from thestormwater system of Lockhart township. The outcome from the installation of theseGPT’s was improved water quality in Brookong Creek, through decreased coliformlevels and reduced sedimentation and pollution. The results were so conclusive, thatan additional six traps will be installed by Lockhart Council and the community, withoutfurther NHT funding support.

Based upon what is proposed in NHT funding applications, there would appear to bereasonable links ‘in theory’ between outputs and desired outcomes. Conversely, theoutputs and desired outcomes of some projects were thought to be either overlyambitious or the linkages between them unclear. It will be virtually impossible toeffectively link outputs and outcomes as most cannot be properly measured, andcertainly not with the consistency and technical application required for the generationof reliable data.

Overall, it is largely premature to determine the extent of the linkage betweenindividual project outputs and long term outcomes. A comment from Victoria sums itup as, “Undoing 150 years of damage will take decades, not years, whereasgovernment programs tend to have a short-term timeframe.”

4. What are the unintended results of the Program, both positive and negativeand how are they /can they be handled?

General enthusiasm, expanded awareness of environmental issues and participationin MD2001 projects by community and landholders were deemed to be unexpectedoutcomes by numerous project stakeholders. A number of project managerscommented on the considerable generation of mid- to long-term in-kind support andfunding (especially local government contributions) that had been generated from NHTfunding.

Conversely, the delays in receiving NHT funds experienced by numerousstakeholders, and the amended funding criteria (without adequate information andsupport from NHT) resulted in unexpected problems, such as neglected time lines,frustrated project managers and disillusioned community-based participants. In SouthAustralia, there were reports of a lack of synergy between the MD2001 Program andsome Commonwealth and State run Programs (including Waterwatch). Formalpartnership at a higher level may be required to overcome this. There was alsoconfusion amongst many stakeholders about the current and future role of the RiverMurray Catchment Water Management Board.

5. To what extent has the Program enabled communities and governments tobe aware, understand and participate in choices regarding the sustainableuse of natural resources in the Murray−Darling Basin?

The MD2001 program has provided communities and government authorities withseed money to combat salinity, land and water degradation issues, wetland functionand riparian health, as well as establish groups and forums through which knowledgeand awareness has been enhanced.

Overall, many sectors of the community, non-government organisations andgovernment agencies have participated in MD2001 projects, particularly in thedevelopment of planning strategies as part of project or regional steering committees.



In Queensland, however, there is still a lack of integration between the communitysector and State government in strategic/statutory planning processes.

6. To what extent has the Program contributed to the adoption of ecologicallysustainable land and water management practices, particularly byincorporation into integrated regional/catchment planning and developmentframeworks?

A large majority of the projects reviewed were part of a catchment plan, a local actionplan and/or a regional plan. Therefore, the ecologically sustainable land and watermanagement practices have been adopted as a core component of numerousprojects throughout the MDB. In Queensland, and possibly other States, thedevelopment of such plans are only being recognised slowly at the local governmentlevel, which may have significantly restricted their input and involvement in land andwater management issues.

In South Australia, the irrigated agricultural sectors to have benefited most fromMD2001 funding are dairy and horticulture. Irrigation courses, metering trials,drainage schemes and other types of projects have generated widespreadunderstanding and limited adoption of sustainable land practices and efficient wateruse. The advances in sustainable irrigation practices are underpinned by thedevelopment of a network of local action plans, and associated land and watermanagement plans, within the MDB.

7. To what extent has the Program contributed to the integration of riverineissues with land and vegetation management issues so as to contribute tosustainable agriculture outcomes?

In New South Wales funds provided to address land and vegetation management, hasbeen concentrated on salinity management, ancillary gullies and drainage lines tostreams and rivers. By addressing land degradation and vegetation managementissues on individual properties, landholders have been practising sustainableagriculture, whilst deriving benefits for riverine ecosystems. Similarly in Queensland,the plans being developed are seen as moving towards the appropriate integration ofsustainable agriculture and riverine outcomes.

In South Australia and Victoria, there was the perception that a large number ofMD2001 projects lacked effective integration of land and riverine managementactivities. In some cases, where projects were co-ordinated with land managementactivities, this was not as a consequence of any deliberate Program initiative. In SouthAustralia particularly, most of the projects visited were initiated at the local actionplanning or local government level with the emphasis towards ecosystem restoration,riparian issues and wetland rehabilitation, and therefore skewed away from agriculturaloutcomes. This trend may alter with the finalising of local action plans, which will placegreater emphasis on impacts of irrigation and dryland agricultural practices on theMurray River.

Overall, better integration of riverine and agricultural management issues may requiremore effective co-ordination by different funding Programs within the NHT.

8. To what extent has the Program contributed to water quality and theecological health of rivers, so as to contribute to broader environmentaloutcomes?

On a long term planning level, the contribution of project outputs to broaderenvironmental outcomes are reasonable and underpin the various projects reviewed.Numerous MD2001 project stakeholders were optimistic of improving water quality



and the ecological health of rivers, but not necessarily within the lifespan of the presentProgram.

Of the projects reviewed, not all were related to improving water quality and riverhealth. Funds have been provided for water quality monitoring and on-ground worksto be implemented, such as fencing, wetland rehabilitation, erosion control works anddrainage schemes.

9. In addition, please provide some comment on the Standard NHT ValidationQuestionnaire prepared by the NHT. What were it’s strengths andweaknesses?

The NHT Validation Questionnaires were not an effective means of collecting data inrelation to the Mid-Term Review process. It was difficult answering questions on theNHT form, as the review process did not allow a thorough and complete siteinspection (and, consequently, did not allow collection of reliable observable data),hence validator’s relied mostly upon stakeholder data estimations and comments.Furthermore, the NHT Validation Questionnaire largely included questions about onground works projects that were of limited relevance to many of the projects beingreviewed (and hence could not be answered). As a result, the data generated fromthe NHT generic Validation Questionnaire process may not be of sufficient breadth toanalyse with any confidence.

The questions on the form were drafted on a project milestone basis that was notrelevant to a high proportion of projects still in their infancy. Input of quality, consistent,reliable data into the NHT Questionnaire also requires a level of technical monitoring,data management and reporting expertise that is generally an unrealistic expectationfor community stakeholders. Quality data also requires extensive time to collate,which the project stakeholders do not have available.

The quantitative nature of the answers demanded by the questionnaire did not provideroom for any, potentially critical, ‘perception’ and ‘local knowledge’ based commentsfrom the community. Numbers alone can be relatively meaningless withoutcomments. The NHT could gain far more detail and honesty from perception basedcommentary in their questionnaire. If the questionnaire had any strengths at all, it wasin the potential data generated from questions 1 – 6.

MURRAY−DARLING 2001 PROGRAM


Findings, Conclusions andRecommendations

4.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 provides detailed information on the findings of the MD2001 Review,derived by a process predominantly prescribed by the client (the validation processand desktop reviews) with some input from the consultants (the evaluationquestionnaire). This Chapter interprets these findings, draws conclusions and makesrecommendations based on a synthesis of:

n the material generated from the project reviews;

n Program information;

n literature; and

n a wide range of informants consulted during the review process.

The principle weakness of the data presented in Chapter 3 is that it relies primarily oninformation provided by parties that have been successful at gaining MD2001 funds.This is likely to bias the responses to the some of the questions. It is also possible tointerpret some of the data generated by the process in many different ways, and thusdraw different conclusions.

This interpretation inevitably relies on a wide range of assumptions linked to the statusquo of land management systems in an Australia, 200 years post “agriculturalinvasion”, and approaching the 21st Century. Sustainable river managementincorporates an understanding of the complex interactions of culture, politics,economics and natural systems. The extensive literature of social ecology, politicaltheory, social science, history, philosophy, and the history and philosophy of sciencecan help to illuminate these issues and is deserving of more consideration in informingthe debates on natural resources management in Australia (Dovers and Mobbs 1999).

The purpose of this Mid-Term Review of MD2001 is to assess progress against thestated outcomes and objectives of the Program and against the overall NHTobjectives and Key Result Areas (KRA): integration and institutions, environment,sustainable production and people.

The scale of the challenges allows enormous scope for making progress towardsthese objectives. For the MDB there are four important factors that influence the scaleof the challenges:

1. We do not have integrated institutions or institutional arrangements (IndustryCommission 1998), and in many respects those that exist are historical accidents(Cullen 1997, Alexandra 1992).

Chapter

4



2. The Australian environment and Australian rivers are highly variable both spatiallyand temporally, and in many respects they are different to most of the worldsrivers. Rivers and river health are products and reflections of their catchments(Cullen 1998).

3. We have not achieved sustainable production from most of our resource-basedindustries (SoE 1996) and there are still massive subsidies towards theirexploitation (Environment Australia 1996).

4. People love rivers (Alexandra 1999), but there are many opportunities to improveour understanding and management of them (Cullen 1997) and express thisaspiration through our public culture (Garret P., and Grenfeld P., pers. com.) andour legislative and policy responses (Maher 1999).

4.2 General Findings and Conclusions

4.2.1 Background to Key Result Areas

MD2001 operates within the complex policy and institutional environment that is theMDB. The MDB initiative is one of the more complex NRM management frameworksthat have evolved since the "historical accident" of British colonization.

Cullen (1997 p4) states that "historical accidents have impeded development" and thatusing the River Murray as a State border is one of the worst possible outcomes givenour present understanding of the need to manage land on a catchment basis.

State arrangements and policies have a large bearing on successfully achieving theMD2001 goals and intended outcomes. They frame the delivery pathway of the NHTPrograms and have a huge influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of integratedNRM arrangements.

The Review found that even though MD2001 projects are on the whole fundamentallysound, there are opportunities for improving the delivery mechanism and Programeffectiveness.

MD2001 funds a wide range of community groups, semi-government and governmentorganisations within the MDB. Through MD2001 investments, the Commonwealthhas stimulated much new activity, and accelerated much activity that was alreadyunderway within the MDB.

The MD2001 Program has funded a range of important projects that address salinity,nutrients, land and water management, community education, assessment and thedevelopment of regional strategies that should contribute towards the achievement ofthe objectives and intended outcomes of both the Program and the NHT.

Table 4.1 summarises the achievements of MD2001 against the NHT key result areas(KRA). The NHT KRA of environment and sustainable production are closely relatedfor the Murray-Darling system because the capacity of riverine systems to maintainproductive values is closely intertwined with environmental or river health. River healthis a consequence of catchment activities and is indicative of sustainable landmanagement (Cullen 1998). These two KRA have therefore been addressed togetherin Table 4.1.



Table 4.1 Summary of NHT Result Areas and Key Issues

NHT KRA Achievements

Environment andSustainable Production

MD2001 contributes to these two NHT KRA directly.

MD2001 is contributing to achieving complementary environmentalprotection and sustainable use of resources.

Integration and Institutions The MD2001 is making a contribution to this NHT objective by supporting arange of activities that are strengthening the capacity of existing institutionsto assess, plan and achieve improved NRM.

MD2001 projects have been instrumental in catalysing new activities andspeeding up others.

People MD2001 is enhancing the community’s capacity and motivation toparticipate and is resulting in improved awareness, informationdissemination and skill development.

Catalytic effects MD2001 funded projects range from highly catalytic – planning, education,demonstration to minimal catalytic effects - funding of works that havelimited flow or catalytic impacts.

The evaluation data contained in Chapter 3 demonstrated that the projects fundedshould contribute to objectives of both MD2001 and the NHT. There is no doubt thatthe projects funded are consistent with broad intended outcomes of the MD2001. Inthis sense the projects are appropriate.

However, the underlying question for the interpretation of the findings relates toeffectiveness and efficiency on a national scale. Are the projects funded those that willcatalyse or leverage the greatest possible progress toward the Program’s intendedoutcomes and goals? This is a question of the appropriateness of investmentselections and how investments are targeted, both within the Program and across theNHT's suite of Programs.

At both the Program and NHT scales, the investment decisions are dependent on thequality of the processes used to determine priorities within the Commonwealth, andthroughout the NHT processes of partnership agreements, SAP's and RAP's etc.These issues are beyond the Terms of Reference (TOR) of this Review.

4.2.2 Summary of Conclusions

The overall findings of the Review can be summarised as:

n MD2001 fills an important need and contributes to the NHT goal and objectives.

n The projects reviewed are aligned with the Program objectives and plannedoutcomes and should contribute to realising the objectives of both the Programand the NHT.

n A wide range of activities have been funded. Many projects are directed to on-ground activities, while many others have a planning and strategic focus.Together they play an important role in building capacity for improvedmanagement of the MDB.

n The Program is not sufficient to address the scale of the NRM threats facing theMDB alone. Of particular concern is the issue of dryland salinity. More innovative,radical and outcome-focused projects will be required.

n The intended outcomes of the Program contradict each other. The outcomesgenerated by projects addressing irrigation drainage may impact adversely onriver health. A detailed consideration of how to manage this is required (seeSection 4.3.2).



The Review also found some frustration emerging directed at NHT processes. Issuesinclude the timing of payments, opinions received on allocation, funding guidelines andapplication forms. These issues need to be addressed to maintain faith in theprocesses and a focus on stimulating meaningful change. Each issue is dealt with inmore detail in Section 4.3.11, but should also be cross-referenced with the findings ofthe Administrative Review.

Other conclusions include:

n The review recommends a range of refinements to the Program aimed atimproving its capacity to contribute to achieving the intended outcomes of theNHT. These include:

1. Improvements to Program management systems.

2. Changes to the management and reporting arrangements for individualprojects.

3. Increased focus on national and multi-regional projects that provide genericsupport for NRM activities.

n Improvements in Program performance and performance information can beachieved by improving the project management system and moving to projectcontracts based on milestone payments.

n There is an urgent need to develop a clearer picture of the magnitude of thechallenges and the options for addressing them within the MDB. There is nowmuch "institutional reputation" invested in the MDB initiative. A process is requiredto generate a "score card" of progress achieved so far, and to determine if thingsare tracking well, or whether a radical rethink is required. The Commonwealthshould commission an "independent think-tank" to review the challenges, optionsand implications of NRM in the MDB.

n Rivers of the MDB have been managed in the past for a range of objectives suchas shipping, irrigation supply and flood mitigation. Today, the focus has changedtowards holistic or ecological objectives that are often only loosely defined.Clearer targets and processes for establishing and meeting these targets arerequired.

n Due to the scale of the challenges in the MDB it is imperative that lessons arelearned and transferred where appropriate. It is important that "the body ofknowledge" develops out of a synergy between practice and theory. MD2001needs to adopt an adaptive management model to refine understanding andpractice, and to invest more in the transfer of the outcomes of successful projects.

Recommendation 1: There is an urgent need to develop a clearer picture of themagnitude of the Natural Resource and Environmental Management (NREM)challenges and the options for addressing them within the MDB. There is now somuch "institutional reputation" invested in the MDB initiative to which the MD20001 ismajor investor that an independent assessment of progress is required.

Recommendation 2: A failure to reduce the scale of the decline of natural resourcesand ecosystems within the MDB will be of immense national economic significance.The Commonwealth should commission a Productivity Commission inquiry into thebenefits generated from Commonwealth investment in the MDB initiative throughMD2001, and to recommend future options for large scale and cost effectiveintervention in the MDB.



4.2.3 Summary of TOR, Findings and Recommendations

The project proponents interviewed considered that it is premature to determine theextent of the linkage between individual project outputs and the wider outcomes ofMD2001. The ongoing nature of NRM projects relies substantially on sustainedcommunity involvement through cultural change. As a result, the long-term outputsare potentially significant, but cannot be truly concluded upon at this stage. It will alsobe virtually impossible to effectively link outputs and outcomes as most cannot beproperly measured, and certainly not with the consistency and technical applicationrequired for the generation of reliable data. The outcomes, in the short term, will haveto be restricted to ‘perception’ based comments, whereas, a few decades of time isrequired to more objectively view outcomes.

Table 4.2 below summarises the findings and recommendations against each of theTOR. It provides a guide as to how the findings have been interpreted and therecommendations derived throughout the remainder of this Chapter.

Table 4.2 Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Review

TOR Findings Recommendations

1. Determine the extent towhich Program activitieshave contributed to theachievement of Program andNHT objectives.

Program activities arecontributing to the MD2001 andNHT objectives (see Table 4.3below).

2. Assess the quality ofperformance informationavailable and identifyrequirements for ongoingperformance information.

Performance information shouldbe improved. Individual projectsgenerally have good information.

The Program shouldimprove its systems forproject contracts andmanagement.

3. Issues of Programimprovement.

60% of projects reviewed raisedissues for Program improvement.

See list ofrecommendations.

4. The continuing appropriatenessof Program objectives inmeeting stakeholder needs andthe mix of projects funded.

Program objectives areappropriate.

No change of objectivesrequired.

Review irrigation drainage(Recommendation 3).

Commission independentreview of progress of theentire MDB initiative.

5. The linkage between outputsand outcomes, particularlywhen these are of a long-termnature.

Program has contributed to theinitiation of new work and thespeeding up or expanding onground activities, however the linksbetween outputs and long termoutcomes are not well defined, SeeChapter 3 re outputs of projects.

There is a need for morepredictive capacity (seeRecommendation 11).

6. Identification of unintendedresults of the Program, bothpositive and negative, and howthey are/can be handled.

Mostly issues relating to NHTprocesses.

Address issues of Programimprovement.

Review irrigation drainage(Recommendation 3).Commission independentreview of progress of theentire MDB initiative.



TOR Findings Recommendations

7. The extent to which theProgram has enabledcommunities and governmentsto be aware, understand andable to make informedeconomic, environmental andsocial choices regarding thesustainable use of naturalresources.

The NHT processes emphasisepartnerships. The Program has notbeen the sole force in enablinginformed involvement but it hascontributed to the initiation of newwork and the speeding up orexpansion of on ground activities.

Over 50% of projects have aneducation component and 50%have an inventory and planningrole. Both the community and localgovernment are involved in themajority of projects.

Informed choices are requiredat all scales, however manychoices regarding NRM aremade at larger scales. Aclearer policy framework isrequired.

8. The extent to which theProgram has contributed to theadoption of sustainable naturalresource managementpractices particularly byincorporation intoregional/catchment planningand development frameworks.

A high degree of projects involvedparticipative planning and were (orwere part of) a catchment plan.

Most projects are incorporatedwithin ICM type frameworks.

Much of the lack of integration isbeyond project capacity andrequires more substantial reforms.

Need to focus on the qualityof the plans and theprofessional and technicalcapacity required to developeffective NRM plans (seeRecommendation 15).

More specific investmentsrequired in building technicaland professional capacity.Require better use ofAustralia's specialist centrese.g. CRC's. Support for trainthe trainer roles andcommunicator roles in CRCetc may pay high dividends(see Recommendation 14).

Suggest further involvementin the National RiversConsortium, which aims tolink R&D with practice.

9. The extent to which riverineissues have been integratedwith land and vegetationmanagement issues so as tocontribute to sustainableagriculture outcomes.

58% of projects aim to achieve theNHT KRA of sustainableproduction.71% of projects are part of anexisting plan, predominantly beingcatchment and action plans, butlimited information available requality and degree of integration ofplans.

Concerns re conflicts of interest inirrigation drainage projects.

Need to focus on the qualityof the plans and theprofessional and technicalcapacity required to developeffective NRM plans.

Review irrigation drainage(Recommendation 3).

10.The extent to which theProgram has contributed towater quality and ecologicalhealth of rivers so as tocontribute to broaderenvironmental outcomes.

Approximately 40% of projectsreported improvements to riverineecosystems (Figure 3.36), andthere is a high belief that outcomesare achievable (Figure 3.32).

The limitations of the datashould be noted.

It will be very difficult toattribute any changes to waterquality and river health directlyto MD2001, and at this stageit is generally too early toobserve outcomes.

4.3 Findings and Recommendations for each Term of Reference

4.3.1 Determine the Extent to which MD2001 Activities have Contributed tothe Achievement of the NHT Goal and NHT Objectives (TOR 1)

The Review provides strong evidence that MD2001 funding has initiated new work,catalysed action, and expanded or speeded up activity already underway. ThereforeMD2001 has contributed to achieving the NHT goal of "stimulating activities in the



national interest to achieve the conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’snatural environment." MD2001 has successfully done this in partnership with otherorganisations, as emphasised in the NHT’s objectives and processes.

The achievement of the MD2001 in relation to each of the NHT objectives is describedbriefly below:

n Provide a framework for strategic capital investment, to stimulate additionalinvestment in the natural environment.

Additional investment and a framework for strategic investment are urgentlyrequired for the MDB. MD2001 projects collectively make a modest achievementin this area, but the most critical elements of the required framework will bedetermined by governments through decisions on policy, regulatory and incentivemechanisms. These issues are discussed in detail in the sections on MD2001outcomes and objectives (see Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.5), and in the section on theneed for more effective management frameworks and institutional arrangements(Section 4.3.11).

n Achieve complementary environment protection, natural resource managementand sustainable agriculture outcomes consistent with agreed national strategies.

The majority of MD2001 projects reviewed demonstrated alignment with thisobjective. However, as it is impossible to manage rivers in isolation from theircatchments, there is widespread adoption of integrated approaches to achieving“complementary environment protection, natural resource management andsustainable agriculture outcomes”.

n Provide a framework for co-operative partnerships between communities, industryand all levels of government.

River management requires cooperation. The high number of multi-stakeholderMD2001 projects demonstrates that the Program is making a significantcontribution to this NHT objective.

Table 4.1 shows MD2001’s achievement against the NHT's key result areas.

4.3.2 Determine the Extent to which MD2001 Activities have Contributed tothe Achievement of Program Objectives (TOR1)

The current MD2001 goal and objectives are listed in Section 1.2 of this report.

The evaluation data provided in Chapter 3 demonstrates that the projects funded arealigned with, and should contribute to the MD2001 and NHT objectives, and that thereis a high expectation that projects will achieve their planned outcomes. Most projectsappear to be well on their way to achieving their stated outputs, however the level ofachievement varies, depending upon the stage of completion of each of the projects.

Table 4.3 below outlines the findings in relation to each of the MD2001 objectives.

A total of 29 recommendations have been made throughout this Chapter, on the basisof the Reviews’ findings. These recommendations are intended to assist MD2001 tomeet both it’s own objectives, and those of the NHT.



Table 4.3 Summary of Findings and Recommendations against MD2001 Objectives

MD2001 Objectives* Findings (see Chapter 3) Recommendations

Improving water qualityby reducing the currentsalt and nutrient levels.

Many projects reviewed willcontribute to this objective.

While most projects had a focus onsalinity and nutrient reduction there isa need for a clearer sense of what isrequired and achievable.

Helping to ensure all MDBcatchments have integratedcatchment managementplans for managing theirresources.

Approximately 50% of projectsinvolved inventory and planning(Figure 3.42).

86% of MD2001 projects validatedare part of a wider plan or aredeveloping plans (Figure 3.12).

Need to focus on improving quality ofthe plans and the professional andtechnical capacity to developeffective plans.

More specific investments in buildingtechnical and professional capacity.Better use of Australia's few specialistcentres required e.g. CRC's.

Independent assessments of plansmay be required.

Supporting on-groundworks that address landand water degradationproblems identified incatchment strategies.

Many projects reviewed aresupporting on ground works (seeFigure 3.31):

n over 50% have initiated newwork;

n 50% catalysed local action;and

n over 40% have expandedactivities or speeded upprocesses.

Consider separation of program intofour separate funding streams:1. State-wide projects;

2. Regional/catchment project;

3. Sub-regional projects; and4. Local action projects.

Restoring the health ofriparian land systems,wetlands and floodplainsby establishingenvironmental flows thatare capable of sustainingnatural processes,protecting water qualityand the aquaticenvironment.

Few projects validated addressedenvironmental flow with exceptionof local wetlands.

This may reflect random projectselection process or a mismatchbetween the bottom up planningapproach to project selection, andthe COAG driven environmentalflows policies.

One major project Victorian DNREproject aims to identify flows needsfor all Victorian rivers.

Increased focus on restoring healthby using environmental flows.Allocate projects to the right scale fordetermining flows regimes.

May need to clearly redefine the goalto reflect the Programs main activityof supporting ICM and local actions.

Funding states for environmentalflows DSS should have an obligationto use the information generated.

Improving the condition ofkey river systems in theMDB through integratedcatchment managementand flow managementstrategies.

There are many projectsaddressing aspects of catchmentmanagement – salinity, vegetationetc, but few projects addressingenvironmental flows.

Approx. 70% of projects believethey are attacking causes notsymptoms (Figure 3.46).

See above.

Encouraging long-termproductive land use in theMDB in balance withenvironmental protection byreducing salinity andwaterlogging in irrigatedlands and dryland areasand encouraging thehighest value use of scarcewater resources.

Projects are encouraging long-term sustainable use.

There are many projectsaddressing these aims.

25% of projects claim to havechanged landuses (Figure 3.37)and more than 30% haveimplemented BMP's (Figure 3.38).Another 30% have implementedPMP (Figure 3.39).

Water use efficiency is beingdriven by commercial and otherpressures.

See Recommendation 3 re irrigationdrainage projects.

* Objectives taken from Consultancy Brief.

MD2001 Outcomes May Conflict

The review found that project activities and outcomes are consistent with the Programobjectives. However there is a potential conflict in the project outcomes.



Irrigated agriculture is a major user of both fertilisers and pesticides and the recenttrend is towards more intensive use. Drainage systems constructed with MD2001funds may be accelerating the discharge of nutrient rich water or water polluted withagricultural pesticides to rivers and streams. It has recently been disclosed thatirrigation drains contribute over 3/4 of the nutrient loads into Lake Wellington (outsidethe MDB). This is almost 10 times the previously acknowledged nutrient level.Irrigation drainage is therefore of particular concern for river health.

MD2001-funded irrigation drainage projects which aim to address the SustainableProduction intended outcomes of "reduction in environmental degradation resultingfrom irrigation induced salinisation and waterlogging” may conflict with the followingEnvironment and Sustainable Production desired outcomes:

n Reduction in salt, nutrient, sediment and pesticide exports from rural, urban andindustrial sources.

n Improved quality of the water resource for environmental, consumptive andrecreational uses;

n Maintenance of ecological communities within floodplain, wetland, riparian and in-stream ecosystems.

This matter should not remain unresolved, and it is recommended that theCommonwealth address it urgently, particularly as the NHT is a major investor indrainage infrastructure in the irrigation districts of the Southern Murray Basin, spendingbetween $5 million and $9 million over the two years of the review6.

There is a need for a national assessment to critiques the effectiveness and theirenvironmental effects. Further, critical analysis of other options is also required. Thisassessment should include both regulatory and technical options for minimisingimpacts, such as stricter EPA regulation of drainage discharges, harvesting andrecycling of drainage water, source reduction etc.

The Victorian EPA has indicated that it has no intention of licensing irrigation drains.However the same are licensed In NSW. There is recent case outside the MDBwhere irrigation drains are contributing in excess of 10 times the estimated nutrientloads to a river.

Recommendation 3: The Commonwealth should initiate an independent review intoNHT investment into irrigation drainage infrastructure. The review should assess themerits, cost sharing and environmental impacts of irrigation drainage works funded bythe NHT and recommend ways to overcome any potential negative impacts onriverine ecosystems. Further NHT investment should be contingent on drainageproposals satisfying formal EIA processes and, if they proceed, the licensing ofirrigation drains by the relevant State EPAs. The Commonwealth should requiredetailed EIA before any further NHT investment so that it can be satisfied that theenvironmental benefits outweigh any costs or risks to the receiving waters.

6 The exact amount is hard to determine because some projects are clearly listed as drainage projects whileother are referred to as "land and water management plans" which include major drainage works. Either waythe NHT is a sizable investor in irrigation drains.



4.3.3 The Continuing Appropriateness of MD2001 Objectives in MeetingStakeholder Needs and the Mix of Projects Funded - General Issues(TOR 4)

The partnership agreements between the States and the Commonwealth recogniseas a matter of principle the strategic frameworks provided by a series of policies andstrategies (for example Commonwealth of Australia 1983; 1990; 1991a; 1992; 1994;1996, 1996b). As a result they give effect to the national policy goals that relate toriverine ecosystems, water resources and catchments within the MDB. This isachieved via the IAE, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development(NSESD), Council of Australian Government reforms (COAG), National Water QualityManagement Strategy (NWQMS) and the Principles for Provision of Water toEcosystems, among others. The States also have processes to identify NRM goalsoutside of the NHT process.

The continuing appropriateness of Program objectives needs to be determined inrelation to a wider suite of issues affecting NRM. This has been attempted below,albeit briefly.

Several existing publications are recommended reading to place this discussion in itsbroader operating context, viz: Maher et al 1999, Rutherfurd et al 1998, IndustryCommission 1998, and LWRRDC 1999.

All Australians are Stakeholders

The question of meeting stakeholder needs requires a clear definition of who thestakeholders are. A narrow definition would include parties involved in or aspiring tobe involved in MD2001 projects, while a broader definition would extend to the entireAustralian population. The consultant prefers the latter definition because the MDBhas inestimable value as a common property resource. It provides water, fish,biodiversity, functional ecosystems, as well as a range of economic values of majorsignificance to the nation, including use and non-use values, bequest values etc.Furthermore, NHT funds form a component of the peoples' investment in protectingand maintaining this common national property.

Complex questions on how stakeholder needs are determined then arise from this.These questions extend well beyond the scope of this report, except to say that thedemocratic and policy processes of governments appear to be the only viableavenues for the discussion, debate, and decision making that must occur (see forexample, Dovers and Mobbs 1999, Dore and Woodhill 1999; Sachs 1992, CSIRO1989 and Ralston Saul 1994). Reference to a wide range of national policydocuments is also useful (for example Commonwealth of Australia 1983; 1990; 1991a;1992; 1994; 1996, 1996b).

Common property resources like rivers and biodiversity involve many complex issuesof equity, efficiency, and stewardship (Young and McCoy 1995). Similarly issues ofsubsidies, allocation regimes and inter-generational responsibilities extend far beyondthe scope of this review. These have been the subject of considerable policydevelopment and economic analysis in the last decade. For an examination of someof these economic and policy issues in relation to Australia's rivers see IndustryCommission (1992, 1996, 1998 and 1999) and Environment Australia (1996). For aninternational perspective on these issues refer to Young and McCoy (1995)

The sustainability consequences of production systems are now also beingconsidered in relation to international trade regimes and could be of increasingsignificance for Australia’s rural industries in terms of potential market access issues(Heiler 1998, French 1993 and Alexandra 1999).



Despite this considerable investment in policy development the general trends in thecondition of many rivers and water resources continues to decline (SoE 1996). Theforces driving this decline are not unique to Australia and there is a growinginternational consensus that there is a global water crisis looming (StockholmEnvironment Institute 1993).

The problems that plague the management of the MDB and other Australian rivers area classic “Tragedy of the Commons” (Cullen 1998). Furthermore they do not lendthemselves to simple solutions because they have all the features of “wickedproblems” (Maher 1999).

"Wicked Problems" and "Management Solutions" (after Maher 1999)

A number of general observations about NRM, ecosystem, or river management inthe MDB7are also pertinent to the discussion and set the context for interpretation ofthe findings and help to identify opportunities for the MD2001 to realise its intendedoutcomes.

While much has been done to improve NRM both in Australia and in the MDB "theincorporation of ecological sustainability into policy has been ad hoc, incomplete andtentative. The central problem is that Australian Governments have yet to put in placea comprehensive, integrated and far sighted way of promoting the ecologicallysustainable management of natural resources" (Industry Commission 1998).

Responsibility for management of riverine systems in most Australian jurisdictions isnot well defined. This is in contrast to some overseas countries including Canada(Price P pers. com.) or New Zealand. In the latter, reforms earlier in the decadecreated regional councils based on catchment boundaries that have a wide range ofintegrated NRM powers and responsibilities (NZ Ministry of Environment 1991, 1991a;Alexandra 1994).

The MDB suffers from a lack of well defined institutional or managementarrangements despite the MDB initiative and the MDBC. Legislation and legislativeunderpinning for river management have recently been reviewed by Maher et al(1999). This report describes the nature of the dilemmas, the current policy andlegislative situation and the many barriers to effective management. Importantly,Maher et al (1999) proposes a set of best practice guidelines for legislation andinstitutional arrangements for NRM. These are of significance to MD2001, the MDBCand many of the NHT funded projects within the MDB, because they articulate theneed for effective links between policies, plans, legislation and management regimes ifthe current barriers or impediments to integrated NRM are to be redressed.

Commonwealth MD2001 investment should be used strategically on projects whichhelp to identify critical barriers to sustainable management of the MDB and the optionsto address them. There is a strong case for more focus on projects that explicitly aimto stimulate or support change to institutional arrangements and/or support thedevelopment of more effective management arrangements.

Recommendation 4: MD2001 investment should be used strategically on projectsthat help to identify critical barriers to sustainable management of the MDB and theoptions to address them.

The management of rivers in the MDB has, in the past, focused on a range of specificobjectives such as shipping, irrigation supply or flood mitigation. Today there is a

7 refer to glossary if you are confused about the range of terms which relate to rivers, catchments,ecosystems, NRM etc



focus on holistic or ecological objectives that are often only loosely defined. Clearertargets and processes for establishing those targets are required.

Recommendation 5: It is recommended that MD2001 invests in developing andtrialing processes that help clarify and articulate management goals and targets forrivers, in conjunction with relevant State agencies or authorities.

While many ESD policy principles have been agreed to, Maher et al (1999) recognisesthe need for important societal choices to be made regarding the management andrestoration of Australia's rivers, and their catchments, in order to target efforts. Shestates that while "the policy basis for river restoration is a decision for Australia as awhole, and for each jurisdiction" the "policy emphasis may be on a combination ofseveral options, including:

n protecting the present ecological integrity of all rivers;

n protecting the ecological integrity of all highly natural rivers;

n restoring only those rivers which will respond most readily to a small amount ofinvestment (80 / 20 rule); or

n restoring the most stressed rivers, or those highly stressed river with highconservation significance".

It is clear that a range of policy choices are required which will help to articulate goalsand direct resources towards achieving these goals. These complex choices occur ata range of scales from national to local. There is a range of factors influencing thefuture of the MDB and a wide range of parties have an interest and involvement inriver restoration and management.

A More Co-ordinated Approach to River Care Knowledge Requirements

Rutherfurd et al (1998) have recommended that investments in river management andrestoration be guided by a set of criteria for assessing cost effectiveness. Theyrecommended that priority is given to investments in conservation of ecologicalfunctional systems or river reaches, followed by rivers that will respond tomanagement change, and lastly to invest in restoration of extensively degradedsystems. The justification for this conservation to rehabilitation hierarchy is costeffectiveness and potential return on investment.

Rehabilitation is a high cost and high-risk business and the entire MD2001 budgetcould be used on attempting to rehabilitate a handful of rivers. For example, a recentestimate of the cost of stabilisation alone, of the Tully River in North Queensland wasput at over $14 million. It is therefore desirable that projects that are focused onrestoration and rehabilitation works should be directed to developing skills andunderstanding in river restoration processes, including developing an understanding ofthe most cost-effective methods to achieve the desired outcomes. Rutherfurd et al(1998) provides practical guidelines for developing criteria for assessing costeffectiveness in river restoration.

Recommendation 6: MD2001 should develop criteria for assessing the costeffectiveness of river restoration investments. Projects focused on restoration andrehabilitation should be directed to developing skills and understanding in riverrestoration processes, including developing an understanding of the most cost-effective methods to achieve the desired outcomes.



Restoration ecology in general and ecological river management and restoration inparticular are young disciplines especially in an Australian context (Rutherfurd et al1998). It is imperative that lessons are learned and transferred where appropriate. Itis important that "the body of knowledge" develops out of a synergy between practiceand theory. MD2001 funded projects represent an important test bed and appliedexperiment.

Cullen (1997, p 9) explains an adaptive approach to NRM by advocating that as alearning community we accept interim solutions and "apply the organised scepticism"of science to test them against the outcomes they produce. This should become theclarion call of the many delightful Australian sceptics who believe that governments orcommunities have no intention of fixing the environment. Cullen (1997) fails toadvocate an approach to even arriving at interim solutions. He does however identifythe so-called forces of darkness in government - “greed, ignorance, institutionalarrangements and fashions”.

Recommendation 7: It is recommended that MD2001 actively supports thedevelopment of ‘the body of knowledge’ by working more closely with educational andresearch and development (R&D) institutions at both the national and regional scale.

There is a need for MD2001 to focus more directly on capacity building by supportingthe development and dissemination of skills and understanding and in particular tools,methods, advice, support and information on river processes and management.

Recommendation 8: In conjunction with the research and education institutions,MD2001 should invest more in national (and other) projects that satisfy the need forriver management training and information dissemination.

Towards this end there is justification for MD2001 to invest more in basin-wide projectsthat satisfy this role in conjunction with the research institutions. The proposedNational Rivers Consortium (NRC) aims to do this by achieving co-operation betweenriver research and management agencies.

The MDBC is one of the partners that have invested in the initial stage of theConsortiums’ development. It is recommended that the MD2001 become full partnerin the NRC should this proceed. In the event that the NRC does not proceed thenMD2001 should find other avenues to achieve the goal of increased co-operationbetween river research programs and programs aiming to improve river management.

Recommendation 8.1: It is recommended that MD2001 becomes a full partner in theNational Rivers Consortium should it proceed. In the event it does not proceed,MD2001 should explore other avenues for improving understanding and informationexchange in collaboration with R&D organisations.

Recommendation 8.2: MD2001 should do more to provide generic support andprofessional capacity building that is specifically pitched at improving riverine andcatchment assessment, planning and management skills throughout the MDB.

Recommendation 8.3: MD2001 should invest directly in projects that supportimproved information networks and the development and dissemination of informationrelevant to ecosystem management in the MDB.

Recommendation 8.4: MD2001 should support projects that actively disseminatetools, methods, advice, support and information on river processes and management.



4.3.4 Stakeholder Needs and of the Mix of Projects Funded (TOR 4)

The Program objectives for MD2001 are highly appropriate in meeting the wide rangeof stakeholder needs existing within the MDB. This is reflected in the highly varied mixof projects that have received funding through MD2001, including wetlandrehabilitation, irrigation, education, catchment planning, ground water drainage andriparian management (see the list of projects reviewed, contained in Appendix 11).

The evaluation results reported in Chapter 3 indicates that an extremely broad rangeof stakeholders is funded (see Figure 3.7). The field staff involved in the interviewsreported a high degree of satisfaction that the Program is meeting stakeholders needs(see Question 1, Section 3.3.3). However it is worth noting that the only informationsource was project proponents that had already received funding, therefore thesample has a potential for bias. In addition, the evaluation process applied andapproved did not measure the need or demand for river management outside of thefunded projects.

MD2001 funds a wide mix of projects from small Local Action Plans to Statewideassessments, which vary in scope, scale and location. Given the existing objectivesand outcomes of MD2001, and the reliance on a bottom up approach to nominatingprojects through the One Stop Shop, the selection of projects seems appropriate.

The focus of many projects on strategic planning and assessment at a local orcatchment scale is justified. However, the Review found only limited investment inprojects addressing environmental flows and flow management strategies. This is animportant objective that appears to have been neglected, either due to the randomselection process, the bottom up nature of the OSS processes, or because of thescale and complexity of environmental flow issues.

Recommendation 9: It is recommended that the limited investment in projects thataddress environmental flows and flow management strategies should be rectified.

It should be noted that the Review process has not specifically identified the extent towhich the projects funded actually meet the need. For example, a project doingsomething to address salinity does not inform us if what is being done will be of asufficient scale to address the problem. This information should be compiled at afuture date, at both regional and national scales.

The Review assesses that the project selection must be more accurately matched to aneeds assessment process, to provide greater certainty that projects are addressinghigh priority needs with appropriate responses and within limited resources.

In addition to a needs assessment, the Program should develop criteria for assessingthe cost-effectiveness of investments, as discussed in Section 4.3.3. Projects that arefocused on restoration and rehabilitation should be directed to developing skills andunderstanding in ecological restoration processes, including developing anunderstanding of the most cost-effective methods to achieve the desired outcomes.

Defining the Role of MD2001

MD2001 needs clearer demarcation from other NHT programs to minimise duplicationof effort and to increase Program cost-effectiveness. It needs to be distinguished fromthe NLP and Bushcare on small action projects and on planning projects. Many ofthese projects appear similar in aim, scope and approach. For example, riparianrestoration and catchment vegetation projects could be funded from all threePrograms.



Demarcation is also required between MD2001 and the National River HealthProgram (NRHP) for projects aiming to determine environment values orenvironmental flow requirements.

Recommendation 10: The roles and relationships between MD2001, NLP, Bushcareand the NRHP should be better defined.

4.3.5 The Linkage Between Outputs and Outcomes, particularly when theseare of a Long-term Nature (TOR 5)

"I feel there is a direct linkage between outputs and outcomes. For example BrookongCreek Rehabilitation and Effluent Reuse Scheme Part 2 saw the installation of twogross pollutant traps within Lockhart (this being an output). Lockhart is a relatively tidytown, but these traps collected fine sediment, animal faeces, and general rubbish fromthe stormwater system. The outcome of the installation of these traps improved thewater quality in Brookong Creek, noticeably by a decrease in coliform levels andsedimentation. Lockhart Council and the community are so impressed that anadditional six traps will be installed without the help of NHT funds."

MD2001 Reviewer

The current MD2001 outcomes and outputs are clearly listed in the MD2001 ProgramLogic, a copy of which is contained in Chapter 1 (refer Table 1.1). Each of the projectoutcomes are attributed to one of the NHT’s KRA.

The MD2001 project validators made the following comments relating to the linkagebetween outputs and outcomes (refer Section 3.3.3, Question 3):

n There were numerous projects that demonstrated strong a on-ground linkagebetween project outputs and environmental outcomes.

n Based upon what is proposed in NHT funding applications there would appear tobe reasonable links ‘in theory’ between outputs and desired outcomes.

n Conversely, the outputs and desired outcomes of some projects were thought tobe either overly ambitious or the linkages between them unclear. It will be virtuallyimpossible to effectively link outputs and outcomes as most cannot be properlymeasured, and certainly not with the consistency and technical applicationrequired for the generation of reliable data.

n Overall, it is largely premature to determine the extent of the linkage betweenindividual project outputs and long term outcomes.

MD2001 has contributed to the numerous outputs and outcomes from the fundedprojects. About 90% of projects evaluated for the Review claimed outputs andoutcomes that appear measurable and achievable (Figure 3.32). Over 50% ofprojects evaluated report that the projects have produced outcomes that have had ahigh degree of use by the proponents (Figure 3.33). In addition, 70% of projects reporta high degree of interest in the outcomes (Figure 3.35).

Projects reported that the MD2001 funding had been responsible for the initiation ofnew work (60%); catalysing of local action (54%), and speeding up (40%) orexpanding (38%) ongoing activities (Figure 3.31). The results also provide strongevidence that more than 40% of the project proponents believe that their projects haveresulted in improved riverine ecosystems (Figure 3.36). A further 70% of projectproponents believe that the project is addressing causes not symptoms (Figure 3.46).



These are impressive figures and taken at face value imply that the Program has hadgreat success in addressing NRM issues. The Review argues that these figures areover optimistic and that, as most MD2001 funded projects are under two years old,there is not yet sufficient evidence to be this optimistic.

In addition, it is considered that it is premature to determine the extent of the linkagebetween individual project outputs and the outcomes of MD2001. It will be virtuallyimpossible to effectively link outputs and outcomes as most cannot be properlymeasured, and certainly not with the consistency and technical application required forthe generation of reliable data.

The links between project actions and long term outcomes could be improved byfurther investment in predictive capacity and/or by developing closer workingrelationships with R&D organisations. These organisations can provide useful modelsof ecological processes, models of river health and a clearer understanding of how tointervene to maximise chances of success.

Monitoring of long term outcomes in the terms of improved water quality and riverhealth will be expensive, and any improvements will be hard to attribute to MD2001.At this stage in the process the MD2001 outputs should be measured mostly in termsof community education, improved capacity and the quality of riverine and catchmentplans. If projects generate these, and are adequately linked to organisations withcapacity to implement the plans, the longer-term outcomes should follow.

Confidence that outputs are linked to long-term outcomes is best gained from thepredictive capacity of the biological sciences. An investment in the scientific review ofcatchment plans and other forms of independent assessment are required to providegreater certainty that project outputs will lead to outcomes.

Recommendation 11: MD2001 should invest in independent reviews of catchmentplans and action plans to provide greater certainty that planned project outputs willlead to desired long term outcomes.

The results of the evaluation indicated that over 40% of projects are perceived to beachieving riverine ecosystem improvements (Figure 3.36) and that 90% of projectsclaim to be able to produce measurable and achievable outcomes (Figure 3.32).These figures tend to indicate that MD2001 has made a sizeable contribution toimproving riverine ecosystems or NRM in the MDB. However what this also tells us isthat where the MD2001 has invested, it has been possible to implement a project thatimproves some aspect or another of the environment. This may be via a grosspollutant trap, riparian revegetation or community education.

While these projects are useful they do not inform us of the scale of the need and theextent to which the overall need has been met. One gross pollutant trap in a city willmake a difference but not much; the restoration or protection of the riparianrevegetation on one bend of a river will make a difference but not much if the river hasthousands of kilometres of stream bank in need of protection.

In short, MD2001 has contributed to achieving improvements in the MDB but there isstill a vast job to do. At some time in the future it will be very difficult to attributechange entirely to MD2001 because every project in the MDB has been undertaken inpartnership with organisations.

Many project proponents involved in the Review believed that is ‘too early to tell’ ifdesired biophysical outcomes have been achieved (see Question 10, Section 3.3.2).There are a range of issues which contribute to this uncertainty, including:



n the temporal and spatial scales involved;

n the many compounding factors; and

n the generally poor quality of baseline information.

Section 4.3.12 on performance monitoring suggests linking monitoring to targets, andtherefore addresses many of the issues of linking project outputs to outcomes.

4.3.6 Unintended Results of MD2001, both Positive and Negative (TOR 6)

The MD2001 Program Review found both positive and negative unintendedconsequences. Comments from the project proponents have been summarisedagainst Questions 19 and 28 of the evaluation questionnaire (see Section 3.3.2).

The positive consequences included:

n Increased interest and development of new or expanded action groups;

n Increased demand for technical information and support;

n Unexpected or elevated sources of in-kind technical and financial supportunlocked; and

n Increased recognition of cultural and historical values of rivers.

The Review found some frustration emerging that was directed at NHT processes.These included the timing of payments, the feedback received on reduced budgets,the funding guidelines and the application forms (see Section 4.3.11), and unrealisticrequirements for performance monitoring (see Section 4.3.12).

4.3.7 The Extent to which MD2001 has Enabled Communities andGovernments to be Aware, Understand and Participate in ChoicesRegarding the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in the MDB (TOR 7)

"It will only be possible to gauge the outcome of the on-ground projects in the longterm. It would be particularly inappropriate to say that a NHT-funded project involvingincreasing vegetative cover, that did not result in an improvement in river water qualitywithin the timeframe of the project, was not worth doing. Undoing 150 years ofdamage will take decades, not years, whereas government programs tend to have ashort-term timeframe."

MD2001 Reviewer

Many of the outputs of MD2001 are community education and awareness, improvedknowledge and greater capacity to manage natural resources. These are all veryimportant outputs, but they are difficult to link directly to long-term outcomes.

Education and Awareness

MD2001 is making sizeable investments in projects that have education,communication and planning components (see Figure 3.42). There is clearjustification for continuing these kinds of investments, as these kinds of projectssupport more awareness, understanding and informed decisions.

MD2001 also funds a large number of local works or action projects. These projectsalso influence the communities' ability to participate and understand. As shown in the



following figures, the results of the Review indicate that MD2001 is contributing to thelevel of awareness, understanding and participation in the management of rivers andwater quality. The project validations and evaluation processes indicate that there are:

n a high number of projects actively disseminating results (about 76%, see Figure3.6);

n a majority of projects that have State government (approximately 76%) and land-holder involvement (approximately 78%) (see Figure 3.7);

n approximately 46% of projects have local government involvement (see Figure3.7); and

n approximately 35% of projects of projects have schools and university involvement(see Figure 3.7).

Note that the above figures of stakeholder involvement add up to in excess of 100%due to the involvement of multiple stakeholder types in most projects (see Figure3.27).

Skill development and awareness are important outputs of the MD2001 investment. Ithas the potential for high future returns and is a NHT priority outcome area that isdemonstrating high achievement (according to the focus groups conducted for theInland Waterways Theme Mid-Term Review). To further enable communities andgovernments to make informed decisions regarding NRM in the MDB, MD2001 shouldcontinue investing in projects that:

n provide high quality community education and information;

n aim to learn from existing projects and transfer results;

n establish and resource learning frameworks and/or issues based networks;

n specifically act as "knowledge brokers" or establish means to ensure thatknowledge is used to inform management strategies through better links with R&Dagencies;

n educate professionals and build professional capacity, especially in newtechnologies and innovative methods; and

n increase capacity for quality NRM planning and assessment.

Recommendation 12: It is recommended that MD2001 continue its investment incommunity education and capacity building projects and programs.

Informed Choices and Participation

MD2001 projects have high involvement in integrated and participative planning (seeFigure 3.34), communication (see Figure 3.6) and community education (see Figure3.42). MD2001 is therefore assisting communities and governments to make moreinformed choices.

The NHT processes emphasise partnerships and many MD2001 projects are multi-stakeholder partnerships (see Figure 3.27) with a range of agencies providing supportand involvement (see Figures 3.7 and 3.26). In these kinds of projects it is hard toidentify the driving force, however Figure 3.31 indicates strong evidence that MD2001funding has initiated new work, catalysed action, and expanded or speeded up activity.



Hence while MD2001 has not been the sole cause, it has contributed to the initiation ofnew work and the acceleration or expansion of on-ground activities. These resultssupport the claim that MD2001 has contributed to achieving the NHT goal of"stimulating activity in the national interest to achieve the conservation, sustainableuse and repair of Australia’s natural environment”. Furthermore, it has successfullydone this in partnership with other organisations in the MDB.

The increase in awareness and capacity to understand and to participate depends onmany factors including:

n democratic structures and processes;

n quality of community education; and

n the kinds of consultation processes supported within the community.

Many choices regarding rivers need to be made at the largest scales and few local oreven State government processes align well to the scale of most rivers. MD2001 hasfunded projects that help bring the parties together across these large scales involvedin river management.

MD2001 should continue to support the capacity building necessary to enableinformed decisions at all scales that affect NRM across the MDB. In particular, it mustcontinue to support improved capacity at the catchment scale. It is at this scale thatorganisational and planning capacity is at its weakest (see Recommendations 8.2 and12).

4.3.8 The Extent to which MD2001 has Contributed to the Adoption ofEcologically Sustainable Land and Water Management PracticesParticularly by Incorporation into Regional/Catchment Planning andDevelopment Frameworks (TOR 8)

Catchment Planning and Development Frameworks

Catchments are the primary scale used for land and water management planning inmost parts of Australia. MD2001 has supported and contributed to this by providingresources for catchment organisations to plan, and to implement plans or parts ofplans. The site validation results indicate that nearly 50% of MD2001 projects are partof a State, regional or catchment management plan, and that 36% are part of anaction plan or other plan (see Figure 3.12).

The MDB requires effective well-defined management arrangements or frameworks tomanage waterways at the scale needed (that is, at the catchment or regional scale).Part of this is the capacity to assign responsibilities to various relevant parties.

These frameworks are critical to the long-term success of the NHT investment, andare now widely recognised as an important means of achieving the MD2001 goal of"contributing to the rehabilitation of the MDB, with a view to achieving a sustainablefuture for the Basin, its natural systems and its communities".

Many projects recognise that if the goals of river health and improved NRM are to beachieved, then their projects must effect change at a regional scale.

The number of multi-stakeholder projects (see Figure 3.27) implies that institutions areevolving. MD2001 is well placed to support the capacity of these emerging NRMframeworks with a range of technical and educational support. It can further stimulate



institutional evolution and should explicitly aim to catalyse the development ofexcellence in institutional arrangements and in planning and implementation capacity.

Recommendation 13: It is recommended that MD2001 explicitly acknowledges theimportance of sound management structures at a regional scale, works to stimulatefurther institutional evolution where necessary, and supports increased capacityamongst these institutions to deliver integrated natural resources management.

Improving Technical and Institutional Capacity

There is an enormous need for continuing support and capacity building to achieveintegrated NRM goals in many regions across the MDB. For this reason, it isrecommended that MD2001 devotes more investment to regional scale assessment,planning and capacity building. The need to invest in more large-scale projects thatbuild capacity and support improved management at the local and regional scale,requires further MD2001 investments on NRM planning and strategy development.The investment should aim for:

n Strategies that are robust and based on good quality information and soundecosystem and hydrological understanding. This will improve their chances ofsuccess and cost effectiveness. To achieve this, many regional organisationsneed to be supported with better assessment, monitoring and planning methods,and ecological and economic analysis.

n Strategies that are embedded or linked with effective institutions - strategies needto be based on viable links to organizations or management agreements capableof delivery.

n Strategies that are endorsed by relevant institutions to facilitate the adoption ofconsistent policy and regulation. Thus strategies become the basis for contractualarrangements, rather than being based on influence, and they are designed toinstill effective co-management and co-regulation.

n Strategies that make better use of statutory planning and resource allocationpowers to protect rivers and natural systems.

The MD2001 should further build technical and institutional capacity in rivermanagement by:

n Investing in capacity building projects that are multi regional in scope and that arecapable of supporting regional or catchment efforts. These projects should focuson improving the quality of the plans and the professional and technical capacity todevelop and implement effective riverine plans.

n Better use of Australia's few specialist centres of expertise capable of delivery ofhigh quality ecological and hydrological advice (eg. CRC's).

n Support for train-the-trainer roles and communicator roles in CRC's etc. may payhigh dividends.

n Developing and disseminating effective tools, techniques, methods etc.

n Commissioning reviews of successful projects and transferring these models toother regions.

n Encouraging the development of regional management frameworks that havemanagement and regulation functions built in so that responsibility for



implementation of strategies is clear, as are the roles of auditing theimplementation.

Recommendation 14: It is recommended that MD2001 advances institutionalevolution by investing in targeted capacity building projects, along with reviews anddocumentation of successful models, and by linking funding of regional strategies toformalised management and regulatory frameworks.

Regional Planning and Market Forces

“The most significant sector in South Australia to have benefited from MD2001 fundingare dairy and horticultural irrigators. Irrigation courses, metering trials, drainageschemes and other types of projects have generated what appear to be widespreadunderstanding and some adoption of sustainable land practices and water use. Thisis largely helped by the development of legislation, guidelines and controls for theirrigation industry.”

MD2001 Reviewer

Over the last decade, State, local and Commonwealth governments have invested ina wide range of regional planning processes aimed at developing integrated regionalNRM strategies. Many of these exist within the MDB.

These strategies operate at a scale between local and State government, andbecause regional organisations rarely have a well defined statutory basis they havebeen described as the "bastard children of federalism" (Alexandra in Dore andWoodhill 1999).

There has been a range of integrated planning initiatives for NRM in many States,however these have mostly focused on issue identification and planning within a publicpolicy or program context. There is a need to focus more on how to achieveoutcomes in a cost-effective fashion, and on how to use a wide range of inputs(including regulatory measures, markets and statutory planning) to achieve the desiredoutcomes.

A lot of credence is given to the fact that most projects within the MDB take placewithin the context of some kind of plan. Indeed most of the projects reviewed werepart of a plan or a planning process (see Figure 3.12). While it is useful to note that aplan exists, little information is available regarding its effectiveness, level of integrationor long-term objectives. A detailed review of the quality of individual catchment oraction plans was beyond the scope of this Review. However, whether plans have astrong technical and scientific basis, or indeed whether there are more cost-effectivemeans of generating the same outcomes needs to be determined.

A greater level of investment should be made in the technical and economicassessment of regional NRM or catchment plans. This assessment should aim toensure a sound ecological underpinning to the plans, and that the most cost-effectivemethods are proposed. It is also necessary to determine with confidence that outputswill lead to outcomes, and that funding programs are not simply a form of "substitutionbehaviour” on the part of governments that are unwilling to use regulatory or otherpowers.

Recommendation 15: It is recommended that MD2001 invests more in theassessment and review of regional NRM or catchment plans, to ensure a soundecological underpinning to the plans and provide confidence that planned outputs willlead to outcomes. Where it is not certain that outputs will lead to outcomes in a cost-



effective fashion, projects should be independently reviewed and/or develop ahypothesis that can be tested in the early phases of the project.

Where there is uncertainty that outputs will lead to outcomes, projects should berequired to:

n be independently reviewed; or

n develop a hypothesis that can be tested in the early phases of the project.

All large projects that have MD2001 investment in the implementation phases shouldhave independent analysis or assessments built in as an early milestone. TheCommonwealth should specify other early milestones, where appropriate, that mayinclude:

n adequate risk assessment;

n monitoring and evaluation plans including an adaptive managementcomponent/core;

n assessments of cost effective implementation methods.

Recommendation 16: All large projects that have MD2001 investment inimplementation should have independent analysis or assessments built in as an earlymilestone.

Catchment Authorities and Catchment Rates are making a Difference

Catchment authorities and the accumulation and application of catchment rates aremaking a measurable difference. States have very different managementarrangements for rivers and catchments, which affect the capacity to invest and toclearly assign responsibility for waterway management.

While many NREM strategies are well intentioned and may even have a strongtechnical basis they frequently lack clear connection to organisations with"implementing power - money, governance etc" and therefore often rely on persuasionand influence. There is often a reliance on volunteer efforts and government grants toimplement the priority actions identified in strategies, however this is changing withseveral states and regions implementing catchment rates or environmental levies tocreate a more reliable funding stream.

The creation of catchment authorities (such as in Victoria and SA) and the adoption ofcatchment rates or environmental levies allow for significant leveraging of NHTinvestment in the States and regions applying them. Figure 3.2 identifies State andlocal contributions to MD2001 projects, and demonstrates that a significantly highproportion of local funds is being injected into NHT projects in Victoria. This is almostcertainly as a result of the CMA levy.

The rate income provides important resources to ‘a focal organisation’ whose rolesand tasks are clearer than the large State agencies. The catchment authorities areuseful at amassing resources, providing an umbrella structure for planningaccountability and for organising activity at an appropriate scale for catchmentmanagement.

It is notable that the Victorian Government has recently announced the abolition of thecatchment rate (Weekly Times, 3.11.99).



4.3.9 The Extent to which Riverine Issues have been Integrated with Landand Vegetation Management Issues so as to Contribute to SustainableAgriculture Outcomes (TOR 9)

Approximately 58% of projects reviewed aimed to achieve the NHT’s key result area(KRA) of Sustainable Production (see Section 2.1.3). In itself, this provides anindication of the contribution of MD2001 projects towards sustainable agricultureoutcomes. However, in addition, many projects were simultaneously aiming toachieve outcomes in both the Environment and Sustainable Production KRAs,providing an indication of the degree of integration of issues.

The results of the Review indicate that 71% of projects were part of some type ofexisting plan (see Figure 3.4). In addition, a number of the 29% of projects remainingmay have been a plan in themselves. Half the projects reviewed were part of eithercatchment management or action plans, with additional projects being part of regional,State or land and water management plans. Catchment plans and land and watermanagement plans in particular aim to integrate riverine and land and vegetationmanagement issues, providing further evidence of the contribution of MD2001 projectstowards sustainable agriculture outcomes.

For example, the projects currently being undertaken by the Lower Murray IrrigatorsAction Group (LMIAG) aim to improve the riverine environment thorough the use ofnatural wetland habitats for the management of drainage water from irrigated regions.At the same time, LMIAG is looking to minimise water usage and improve overallirrigation management practices for the long-term sustainability of their systems.

Despite the level of integration of land and water issues implied by the involvement ofprojects in plans, and the number of projects aiming to achieve the SustainableProduction KRA, there are a number of projects in which the issues are not beingintegrated. For example, projects attacking symptoms (such as the restoration ofdegraded riparian vegetation) may be addressing riverine issues, but may be failing toaddress the potentially land-based cause of the problem (such as dryland salinityelsewhere in the catchment).

Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.8 noted that little information is available regarding theeffectiveness, scientific basis, or level of integration of long-term objectives of theaforementioned plans. There is therefore a need to focus on the quality of the plansand the professional and technical capacity required to develop effective plans (seeRecommendations 11 and 15).

In addition, as discussed in Section 4.3.2, a significant number of MD2001 projectsinvolve the construction of drainage systems. These projects aim to achievesustainable agriculture outcomes, but may conflict with the achievement of riverineissues such as improved water quality, by accelerating the discharge of nutrient orpesticide rich water to rivers and streams. This matter is potentially of considerablesignificance, and it is recommended that the Commonwealth address it urgently (seeRecommendation 3).

4.3.10 The Extent to which MD2001 has contributed to Water Quality andEcological Health of Rivers so as to Contribute to BroaderEnvironmental Outcomes (TOR 10)

The evaluation results indicated that approximately 40% of project proponentsperceived an improvement to riverine ecosystems, as a project outcome (see Figure3.36), and 25% of projects reported a change in land use, likely to lead to improvedriver health (see Figure 3.37).



These Figures tend to indicate that MD2001 has made a sizeable contribution toimproved water quality and river health. However what they really tell us is that whereMD2001 has invested funds, it has been possible to implement a project that improvessome aspect or another of water quality. This may be via a change in land use,installation of a gross pollutant trap or community education. While these projects areuseful they do not inform of the scale of the need, and the extent to which the overallneed has been met. One gross pollutant trap in a city will make a difference, but notmuch. Restoring or protecting riparian revegetation in one bend in a river will make adifference, but not much if the river has thousands of kilometres of stream bank inneed of protection.

In short, MD2001 has contributed to achieving improved water quality and river health,but there is a vast job to do. In addition, due to the number of projects beingundertaken in partnership, it will be very difficult to attribute change specifically toMD2001 in future.

Many project proponents involved in the Review believed that is "too early to tell" ifdesired biophysical outcomes have been achieved (refer Question 10, Section 3.4.3).This uncertainty may be a result of the temporal and spatial scales involved, thegenerally poor quality of baseline information, or one of the many compoundingfactors.

Section 4.3.12, which discusses linking monitoring to targets, addresses many of theissues of linking projects to outcomes.

4.3.11 Issues of Program Improvement (TOR 3)

"Due to the focus of on-ground works and immediate gratification of trees in theground, sometimes the planning may not be as thorough as it should be. TheProgram is so focused on statistics of how many trees are in the ground, that it maynot promote best practice or provide time for smaller community groups to plan. Theoutcome-focused Program may sometimes miss the bigger picture of good thoroughplanning and practices."

NRP Reviewer

NHT Processes which Impact on MD2001

The review of MD2001 identified the following 6 issues of Program improvements,which relate to NHT processes:

1. Funding delays and timing.

2. Funding insecurity and short term funding.

3. Insufficient feedback on applications and funding reduction, and confusingapplication forms and guidelines that are inconsistently applied.

4. Onerous paperwork and administrative load for community groups.

5. The need for devolution of local grants to a regional body, viz: Devolved Grants.

6. Onerous and unrealistic performance indicators and monitoring requirements (seeSection 4.3.12).



The first 2 issues are beyond the scope of this Review, and are expected to havebeen addressed by the separate Mid-Term Review of Administration Processes.However, the following brief comments are made.

To address the issue of funding delays, the entire NHT process may need to beimproved, either by improving the process, or by accurately informing proponents ofthe likely time taken to receive notification and payments.

The short-term nature of Program/project funds is basically a fact of life. However theconcerns voiced raise important issues regarding the extent to which many importantprocesses rely on short-term project funds, when they should probably be operatingwithin an established budget process.

The remaining issues are addressed below.

Feedback to Proponents

There is a desire for more feedback to both successful and unsuccessful proponents.The lack of feedback on why RAP (and or SAP) recommendations are not acceptedfor funding, or on why individual projects (or parts of projects) are not funded, leavesproponents questioning the process. Without any feedback, the application formsremain confusing, and the guidelines appear to have been applied inconsistently.

The provision of more feedback would allow proponents to develop improved projectsand project applications, based on an improved understanding of funding guidelinesand project selection criteria.

Recommendation 17: The Commonwealth should establish minimum standards andbenchmarks for the feedback required by RAPS and SAPS to project proponents.

This should, however, be cross-referenced with the findings of the AdministrativeReview.

Reduce the Paperwork and Administrative Load for Small Projects andIncrease Contractual Obligations for Larger Projects

The volume of the paperwork burden loaded on to community groups has beenraised again and again by MD2001 and other NHT Mid-Term Reviews. However, asMD2001 funds go to a range of organisations with projects ranging in size fromseveral thousand to over one million dollars there is no justification in reducing theadministration and accountability for all projects.

There are 4 scales at which NHT projects typically operate:

1. State-wide - usually through a government agency;

2. Regional - at the scale of a CMA or RAP region;

3. Sub-regional - usually a large part of a region, sometimes supporting a Landcarenetwork or ICM group; and

4. Local - a typical Landcare or Bushcare group or local project.

The Review recommends that MD2001 (and the NHT as a whole) develop ways toreduce or simplify administration loads for community groups as part of an overallrestructure of Program access, accountability and administration (AAA) arrangements.



AAA should be modified so that it is appropriate for the kinds of projects funded. TheMD2001 should consider adopting four separate funding streams with differentpriorities, reporting arrangements and guidelines for each, as shown in Table 4.4.

This modification should result in simpler AAA for small local projects, and greater andmore rigorous AAA for larger projects. Larger projects should be based more oncontracts with targets, milestones and milestone payments.

MD2001 should also adopt an improved project management system that is capableof managing the larger projects on a milestone reporting and payment basis. Thiswould improve the quality of the performance information collected regarding projectoutputs and would make assessment of overall Program performance more readilyavailable.

Table 4.4 Suggested Accountability Requirements

Project type Typical group IndicativeBudget

Accountability Requirements

Small localaction projects

Landcare group Under 10k pa Preferably as part of small grantsscheme under a devolved grant scheme.Payment on milestones, annualaccounts submitted, random audits etc.

Medium scale –sub-catchment /sub-regionalprojects

Landcarenetwork, localgovernment etc

Under 50 k pa Preferably as part of devolved grantscheme. Payment on milestones,random audits, external auditor(commercial) etc.

Large scaleprojects

CatchmentManagementAuthority (CMA)or RegionalOrganisation ofCouncils (ROC)

Over 50k pa Greater contractual obligations, welldefined milestones and targets,preferably part of a well defined regionalstrategy or working towards one.

Large scaleregionalprogramsimplementing anendorsedstrategy

CMA orCatchmentManagementCommittee(CMC)

Over 200k pa Requires a strategy that has beenformally endorsed by all parties.

Greater contractual obligations, welldefined milestones and targets.

May involve delivery of one or moredevolved grants schemes that addressspecific Program goals or integratedNRM.

Recommendation 18: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldimprove access to small grants by volunteer groups, by minimising the administrationand accountability workload, without compromising good practice.

Recommendation 19: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldincrease accountability and contractual obligations for larger grants moving to moredefined contract management arrangements with milestone reporting and progresspayments.

Recommendation 20: The NHT Program funds should be delivered through fourseparate processes that have different geographic scales and clarify the level ofaccountability, contractual obligations and implementation responsibilities.

These recommendations should, however, be cross-referenced with the findings ofthe Administrative Review.



Devolved Grants Schemes and Outcome Payments to Implement RegionalStrategies

Devolved Grants Schemes (DGS) should be used for standard regional prioritiesready for implementation, such as riparian revegetation and protection of otherremnants of vegetation. There are numerous examples of devolved grants inoperation such the Corangamite CMA Healthy Waterways Project (see Case Studybelow).

The NLP review in Victoria documented 5 projects that could be defined as some formof DGS because the proponent ‘subcontracted’ the grant in smaller parcels usingsimple contractual arrangements. These include:

1. Corangamite Healthy Waterways - Corangamite CMA (see Case Study below).

2. Project Platypus - sub regional via a Landcare network.

3. Hills to Sea projects - South West Gippsland.

4. Help for the Campaspe - via Local Government.

5. Integrated Rehabilitation of Woodburn creek - via a Landcare group.

The Commonwealth should be prepared to specify criteria for institutional capacity tohandle devolution of local action grants. It must also be prepared to negotiatecontracts in more detail to ensure consistency between State, local and industryparties, cost-effective operations and achievement of targets or milestones.

Devolution of funding should come with devolution of responsibility and accountability.Only some regions have evolved strategies and institutions capable of handling this.DGS should be used to deliver agreed regional priorities when acceptable strategiesand competent and accountable organisations are in place to handle them.

DGS should be used to provide targeted incentives/grants to achieve targets alreadyidentified as a regional priority. The Wet Tropics Region NRM board has developed asubmission on how a DGS may work in their region. Numerous large projects arealready operating as devolved grants elsewhere. A best practice DGS should beorganised to ensure:

1. Greater use of outcome payments to focus attention on management to achieveoutcomes rather than the management of inputs.

2. That outcome payments are determined by reference to a rigorous andtransparent formula based on:

n environmental and geographic priority – the higher the priority, the higher thepayment;

n an assessment of the most cost-effective methods – eg direct seeding versushand planting;

n the balance of public and private benefit.

Recommendation 21: MD2001, in conjunction with other NHT Programs, shouldfurther develop the use of devolved grant schemes. Devolved grants are anopportunity to streamline the access, accountability and administration (AAA) of smallgrants to let the volunteers get on with doing the job, and move the AAA to a higherlevel, umbrella organisation.



Recommendation 22: MD2001 should invest in an improved project managementsystem, which is capable of managing the larger projects on a milestone reporting andpayment basis, to allow the effective implementation of DGS.

Recommendation 23: MD2001 should move to milestone reporting, to improve thecapacity to collate project outputs, collect finer quality performance information andenable improved assessment of project or Program performance.

These recommendations should, however, be cross-referenced with the findings ofthe Administrative Review.

An example of a Devolved Grant Scheme

Case Study: Corangamite Healthy Waterways – Corangamite CMA

This project provides a framework for amassing inputs (approximately $5 million pa).To address priority waterway health issues across approximately one tenth of Victoria.It is a well-developed devolved grant scheme (DGS) that could provide a useful modelfor other regions and States.

The outputs are a range of riparian restoration/revegetation projects (82) and otherwaterways improvement works like litter and sediment traps in urban areas (9), nutrientreduction projects (5), community education projects (7), catchment plans (6) and asmall number of other projects eg. demonstration sites.

The inputs are well linked to outputs by contractual arrangements - outcome payments.

There are simple administration arrangements supported by a single technical officer.

The outputs are well linked to outcomes due to:

1 A region wide assessment of stream condition used to identify priorities for action;

2. Partnerships with all major players - LGA, water boards etc;

3. A strong focus on riparian revegetation and other works aimed to address streamhealth; and

4. An ability to support priority works by individual, Landcare groups or LGA’s;

The project demonstrates a strong regional commitment to addressing waterwayhealth. It uses the catchment levy to leverage funds from other sources to provide asizeable budget for works (approx $5 million pa). The project demonstrates thepotential of a regional NREM authority engendering cooperation and dollars from allrelevant parties, and in providing a framework for priority setting, monitoring andaccountability at a regional scale.

Proponents who wish to fence and revegetate riparian corridors use a one-pageexpression of interest form and if successful are contracted to undertake the works.Payments are made on milestones.



The project provides the LWRRDC Riparian Management Guidelines to all parties thatexpress an interest in undertaking works. The CMA uses the index of stream conditionto access the priorities, and it will be used again in three years time to determineprogress. So far the project has fenced 105.75km of stream, revegetated 301 hectaresand planted 142,000 trees. An original NHT grant of approx $200000 pa has been theleverage $5 million.

The Corangamite CMA Healthy Waterways Project provides an important workingmodel for regional scale restoration works across the continent. The strength of theproject is in its conceptual soundness, links to prescribed environmental monitoring andpriority setting processes, links to R&D outputs (LWRRDC guidelines), ability to gainfinancial and in-kind support from all relevant parties and simplicity of the administrationand accountability arrangements.

By the CMA taking on the administration and accountability roles it allows the Landcaregroups to access funds so they can simply get on with the job.

The project demonstrates that there is an efficient scale for co-ordination, informationdissemination and devolved grants to operate at. At this scale it is relatively easy to beaccountable to State and Commonwealth investors/funders plus any regionalorganisation, and still deliver funds and support to doers.

If the model is more widely adopted then a cap on the administration and technicalsupport provided should be part of the contractual arrangements.

Based on a interview with Peter Codd, Corangamite CMAfor the NLP Review undertaken by Fortech Pty Ltd

Program Management Cycle

There is a need to introduce a process of project management that supportsadaptation and evolution, particularly for larger projects that are dealing with multipleuncertainties.

MD2001 should put more resources into Program management and adopt a clearerproject management cycle so that the Program and major projects are encouraged toevolve and adapt.

One standard project management cycle consists of:

1. Needs assessment - focus investment on outcomes and purpose.

2. Project design - focus on appropriateness via assessment, specifications,investigations, cost-benefit analysis (CBA), risk identification, aiming to determineappropriate and cost effective interventions/projects that will achieve progresstowards purpose identified above.

3. Implementation - focus on efficiency and delivery.

4. Reviews - monitoring outcomes, results and learn lessons to feed into revision ofprojects, strategies and programs.

Section 4.3.12 addresses both the adoption of performance indicators and how tobuild adaptive management strategies into regional scale projects.



4.3.12 Assess the Quality of Performance Information Available and IdentifyRequirements for Ongoing Performance Information (TOR 2 )

Assessment of the Adequacy of MD2001 Performance Indicators

The Partnership Agreements nominate a series of performance indicators (PI) for theProgram, according to the Key Result Areas (KRA) of the NHT. The PIs are takenfrom the Partnership Agreement for NSW, Section 5, which are similar enough tothose for the other States (see footnotes) and are shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 MD2001 Performance Indicators

Performance Indicators

Integration and Institutional8:a) Extent of implementation of agreed flow regime with monitoring and evaluation of river health.b) Basin-wide vegetation management and retention policy developed and incorporated in

catchment management plans (this is not an issue that can be asked of a Project, exceptwhere the output is a catchment plan).

c) Extent to which groundwater management strategies are included in catchment managementplans and are being implemented (not present in most projects).

d) Number of catchments with comprehensive catchment management plans implemented,including disposal, reuse and treatment of urban sewerage and stormwater. (Again this is not aquestion at the Project level and the number would be zero or non-existent for most of theMDB at this time. There are no questions in the Site validation form about sewerage or urbanstormwater).

Environmental:a) Improvements in water quality as specified in Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh

and Marine Waters for turbidity, salt, blue-green algae, phosphorusb) Health of riverine environments assessed against agreed indices. (What are agreed indices?)c) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted and remnant riparian vegetation fenced.d) Extent of implementation of other revegetation activities in strategic areas.e) Level of salt, nutrient and pesticide loads less than or equal to mandated levelsf) Rate of groundwater rise.g) Improved viability of native riverine species and communities9.

Sustainable Production:a) Area of land assessed for current land use against land capability.b) Area of land utilised in accordance with its capabilities.c) Coverage by regional/catchment plans incorporating sustainable land and water management

practices (At the project level one can distinguish between projects that are developingcatchment plans and projects where one can ask about the existence of a catchment plan).

d) Level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniquese) Level of adoption of higher value crops for water used (e.g replacement of dairy farming with

horticulture).f) Sustained regional productivity (It will be extremely difficult to assess this with most projects).

People:10

a) Level of information provided on best management practices and efficient farming systemsand techniques11 (This would only be relevant to projects with a purpose to extend thisinformation).

b) Number of participants in property management plan courses (This would only be relevant toprojects with a purpose to extend this information).

c) Number of communities engaged in integrated monitoring activities within the MDB.12

The PIs have been assessed using six criteria proposed by Hassall & Associates(1998):

8 Qld has an additional performance indicator: “extent to which regional strategies and integrated action plansare developed”.9 SA, Qld & Vic do not mention “…native riverine species”, rather just have “…native species”10 Qld has an additional performance indicator: Number of education, skills development and awarenessactivities relating to catchment management”.11 Qld specifies “level / quality of…” rather than just “level”.12 SA, Qld & Vic do not specify “number of…” but this may be an oversight.



1. Form and function (e.g. an actual indicator rather than a desired outcome ormeans of measurement).

2. Focus on outcomes and relevance to intended outcome.

3. Interpretability (cause and effect, outcomes can be attributed to the Program).

4. Potential use for making judgements about success.

5. Balance and comprehensiveness.

6. Balance of quantitative and qualitative PI performance measures.

Each PI was subjectively ranked according to its potential effectiveness (high, mediumor low) for each of these criteria. The results are shown in Table 4.6. Those indicatorswith an overall rank of high or medium are generally satisfactory, with some tighteningparticularly to show cause and effect, be more outcome-focused and more concise.Those indicators ranked low should be deleted.

The overlap and divergence between the National Rivercare Program and MD2001appears appropriate.

Table 4.6 contains revised PIs suggested for MD2001. However, it is considered that,if a revised Program Logic map is developed for MD2001, then the suggested PIsshould be reviewed.

Recommendation 24: It is recommended that the current MD2001 performanceindicators are replaced with those contained in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Recommended Performance Indicators for MD2001

Performance Indicators against NHT’s KRAIntegration and Institutional:e) Extent that the implementation of flow regime is monitored and evaluatedf) Extent to which Basin-wide vegetation management and retention policy is incorporated in

catchment management plansg) Extent to which groundwater management strategies are included in catchment management

plans and are being implementedh) Number of catchments with comprehensive catchment management plans implemented,

including disposal, reuse and treatment of urban sewerage and stormwater.

Environmental:e) Level of turbidity, salt, blue-green algae, phosphorus (see Australian Water Quality Guidelines

for Fresh and Marine Waters).f) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted and remnant riparian vegetation fenced.g) Rate of groundwater rise in the MDB.h) The number of endangered or threatened riverine species

Sustainable Production:f) Area of land assessed for current land use against land capability.g) Area of land utilised in accordance with its capabilities.h) Area covered by regional/catchment plans incorporating sustainable land and water

management practicesi) Level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniquesj) Level of adoption of higher value crops for water used

People:b) Extent of community involvement in supporting on-ground works



Table 4.6 Ranking of MD2001’s Existing Performance Indicators

PI Form &Function

Outcomesfocus

Interpret-ability.

Can judge Balance Quant. &qual.

Overall Notes

Integration and Institutional:12

a) Extent of implementation of agreed flow regimewith monitoring and evaluation of river health.

M m m m M Could be refined, as the extent of implementation ofagreed flow regime may be outside of the scope ofthe Program, to: "extent that implementation of flowregime is monitored and evaluated". Needs a solidbaseline and targets.

b) Basin-wide vegetation management andretention policy developed and incorporated incatchment management plans

M m m m m PIs b) to d) are much more specific than theobjectives of "integrated catchment plans".Integrated thus needs definition. Otherwise, PIs aresatisfactory, if b) is modified to "extent ofincorporation…".

c) Extent to which groundwater managementstrategies are included in catchmentmanagement plans and are being implemented

M m m m m as above

d) Number of catchments with comprehensivecatchment management plans implemented,including disposal, reuse and treatment ofurban sewerage and stormwater.

M m m m m as above

Environmental:a) Improvements in water quality as specified in

Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Freshand Marine Waters for turbidity, salt, blue-greenalgae, phosphorus

h h m m h Satisfactory, although can be simplified to "Levels ofturbidity, salt, blue-green algae and phosphorus(see Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Freshand Marine Waters)"

b) Health of riverine environments assessedagainst agreed indices.

M h l m m Actual indicator is not defined. What are agreedindices?

c) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted andremnant riparian vegetation fenced.

h h m m h -

d) Extent of implementation of other revegetationactivities in strategic areas.

M m m m m What are strategic areas?



PI Form &Function

Outcomesfocus

Interpret-ability.


Overall Notes

e) Level of salt, nutrient and pesticide loads lessthan or equal to mandated levels

h h m m h Largely overlaps indicator a) above. "Less than orequal to..." indicates a target.

f) Rate of groundwater rise. h h m m m Needs further definition: "in the MDB". Difficult toattribute to the activities of the Program.

g) Improved viability of native riverine species andcommunities .

M h l l m Viability needs definition. Perhaps use an interim PIsuch as "the number of endangered or threatenedriverine species"

Sustainable Production:a) Area of land assessed for current land use

against land capability.h h h m h Satisfactory

b) Area of land utilised in accordance with itscapabilities.

h h h h h Satisfactory

c) Coverage by regional/catchment plansincorporating sustainable land and watermanagement practices

h m h m h Replace coverage with area, number or extent

d) Level of adoption of more efficient farmingsystems and techniques

M h m m m Satisfactory

e) Level of adoption of higher value crops forwater used

h h m m m Satisfactory

f) Sustained regional productivity l m l l l This is a desired outcome not a PI. Either add a PIsuch as Gross Value of Agricultural Production ordelete (it is not nominated in the objectives).

People:a) Level of information provided on best

management practices and efficient farmingsystems and techniques

l m l l l Not directly related to an objective and, further, itwould only be relevant for a limited number ofprojects (with these aims). Level of informationneeds definition (extent, quality, number ofpublications, etc). Preferably delete.

b) Number of participants in property managementplan courses

h m l l m Not directly related to an objective. The number ofpeople doing a course is an activity measurewhereas an outcomes measure would beparticipants adopting PMP material. Preferablydelete.



PI Form &Function

Outcomesfocus

Interpret-ability.


Overall Notes

c) Number of communities engaged in integratedmonitoring activities within the MDB.

M m m m m Not directly related to an objective. A series of PIsrelating to community involvement in improving thehealth of the rivers should be developed, e.g.,"extent of community involvement in supporting on-ground works", etc. This type of PI also overlapswith the Integration & Institutions KRA.

Overall ranking m m m m h h m



Assessment of Management Systems for PI

Appropriate and effective PI need management systems in place to ensure thatperformance information is collated, to specify whose responsibility the collation is andthen to make judgements as to actual performance. The Partnership Agreementsdefine some responsibilities between the Commonwealth and States, and projects arecontractually required to report periodically against their objectives. These objectivesmay or may not be able to be aggregated into a Program wide picture, however that isa separate issue. The need to clarify roles should be cross-checked with the results ofthe Administrative Theme Review.

Recommendation 25: It is recommended that the roles of different parties(Commonwealth, State, Community and Project Proponents) be clarified for thecollation of Performance Information.

Quite specific baseline data is required by a number of the PI specified, in order to seewhether the Program is having any impact, particularly over the longer term. Links toexternal processes, such as State of Environment reporting, is essential to providesome of this Program-level baseline data. At present, the Program runs the risk of nothaving any data in place against which to make comparisons should the current statusbe assessed.

Recommendation 26: It is recommended that the performance indicators be usedwhere baseline data is available.

In addition, targets are required in order to assess whether the impacts are significantand, or desirable. Some of the targets that were explicit or implied referred to externalguidelines, which is a pragmatic approach.

Recommendation 27: It is recommended that targets be set for each performanceindicator.

The Review found that at an individual project level, large-scale projects (which oftenhad agency involvement) generally had good to excellent quality performance data.However, this tended to relate more to data against project objectives rather thanagainst the Program’s PIs.

In contrast, many (smaller) community groups commented that they would rather “dothe on-ground works” rather than stop to monitor. In addition, monitoring is oftenoutside of their capability of community groups due to scale issues, as indicated in thefollowing quote:

"Most community groups do not keep up-to-date statistics, as they are very ‘on-the-ground-work’ oriented. Also most community groups depend on someone who has acomputer and the skills to keep a database of such statistics, which is difficult,especially when they can not access funds to purchase such equipment. "

MD2001 Reviewer

There are a number of key opportunities to improve performance information. Agreater emphasis on the contractual responsibilities for larger projects (as discussed inSection 4.3.11) would further improve the performance information available, as wouldfurther specification of objectives and milestones. A high number of the PIs relate to anational or regional level, which are only feasible for the projects operating at thatscale.



The expectations for monitoring and evaluation of the smaller scale projects needs tobe more explicit to the groups, or support provided. For example, the measure ofperformance may well simply be project and participant numbers.

Performance Information should be used to Measure Performance and BuildAdaptive Management Capacity into Regional NRM Organisations

RAPs, large regional scale NHT projects and regional institutions need to have anadaptive management component/capacity inserted into their operational framework(as discussed in Section 4.3.11).

The Commonwealth should focus NHT Programs on achieving outcomes andstrategies, and larger projects or regional strategies will be requested to specifybenchmarks, targets and stretch goals. Monitoring of progress and milestones is thenmade simpler and community support is easier to mobilise behind the regional vision.Thus, clear monitoring for management logic based around SoE and adaptivemanagement theory (Alexandra et al 1996 and Alexandra et al 1998) is required.

Regional strategies and plans should adopt clearer benchmarks, targets and stretchgoals as well as performance indicators for actions and outcomes. Monitoringstrategies should be based on appropriate indicators measured at the right temporaland spatial scales. For example, Regional Strategy X specifies that:

n As a benchmark the region will use river water quality standards achieved in1999 and will aim as a minimum that these will not be exceeded. Monitoringstrategy: baseline and regular plus storm event monitoring of key water qualityindicators.

n As a target it will aim to have nutrient inflows (total N and P) into the estuaryreduced by 50% within 3 years. Monitoring strategy: monitoring N and P flows intoestuary and use of CMSS nutrient modelling program.

n As a priority action it will upgrade all STP's to the ANZECC/ARMCARZstandards within 2 years. Monitoring strategy: measure the performances of STPbefore and after upgrades.

n As a long term or stretch goal it aims to have floodplain wetlands return to their1940's area (based on areal photos) within a decade. Monitoring strategy:monitoring extent of floodplain wetlands annually to determine progress or lackthereof.

n As an icon species, it uses migratory Spotted Bass. The return of the migratorySpotted Bass, the best sports fish ever, is promoted as the over all aim to thecommunity because there are heaps of mad keen fisher people who haven'tcaught the legendary Bass for several decades.

This approach not only focuses projects and regional strategies on achievingoutcomes but also has the benefit of providing a common vision or goal for thecommunity. If this is married to some kind of icon species, eg the return of spottedBass or dugongs to Moreton Bay, or Platypus to the upper Wimmera River, then itmay be easier to mobilise community support and commitment.

Specifically, on performance information needs, small projects should only report onoutputs whereas the collective outcomes of all investment in NREM should bemeasurable. It is recommended that this be attempted at a regional scale using theapproach outlined above.



Recommendation 28: Performance information should be linked to outcomes at aregional scale. Small projects should only report on outputs whereas the collectiveoutcomes of all investment/activities should be measurable regionally by applying aclear monitoring for management logic based around SoE reporting and adaptivemanagement theory.

Recommendation 29: Regional NRM consortia, ICM committees, catchmentauthorities should adopt clearer benchmarks, targets and goals as well as nominatedperformance indicators for actions and outcomes. Monitoring strategies should bebased on regionally appropriate indicators measured at the right temporal and spatialscales. Larger projects should report performance against milestones specified incontracts.

The need to build better monitoring into the regional management frameworks is wellrecognised. There is a good opportunity to address both the needs for bettermanagement information and better accountability by building greater SoE andadaptive management capacity.

There is a need for continuity in environmental monitoring and SoE programs in orderto measure longer-term impacts and the progress of NREM efforts. For water,continuing the measurement of water quality using both AusRivas and Waterwatch isconsidered a good foundation for the kinds of performance and monitoring systemsoutlined above.

Linking SoE and Performance Information of NREM Programs

A national framework of environmental responsibility and reporting using the pressure-state-response (PSR) model has been proposed in order to integrate enterprisefocused EMS with local, regional and national SoE reporting by Williams and Wallcott(1998). They suggest that all spheres of decision making that significantly affect anenvironment, eg farmers, local government and ICM committees etc, could usefullyapply the pressure-state-response (PSR) indicators at their scale of influence. Amodified version of the framework proposed by Williams and Wallcott (1998) is inTable 4.8.

Their proposed approach is consistent with the findings of a national projectinvestigating the linking of local and regional environmental monitoring andmanagement with SoE reporting (Alexandra, et al 1998). The project found thatwidespread use of a consistent set of indicators would allow data to be more easilyaggregated and compared, and assist in generating useful information formanagement purposes by both government and the private sector, and for use innational, State and local SoE reports.

Table 4.8 shows the position of regional strategies as the bridge between local andState strategies.

Table 4.8 A National Framework for Clarifying Environmental Management andReporting Responsibilities (adapted from Williams and Wallcott 1998)

Scale Responsibleorganisations

Key powers EMS/SoEreporting

Roles and decisions

Internationaland national

Common-wealth

MinisterialCouncils

Trade andForeign affairs

Taxation

SoE

Reports to UNetc

International obligationseg. Climate change,biodiversity convention,tax act. Export control.

Facilitate nationalstrategies and frameworkseg. COAG, competitionpolicy.



Scale Responsibleorganisations

Key powers EMS/SoEreporting

Roles and decisions

State StateGovernments

Landusepolicy,planning, otherlegislation.

Propertyrights.

SoE

SCARMindicators forsustainableagriculture.

Legislation and policy re:

ü Landuse

ü Water,ü Environment

ü Pollution control

ü Chemical use.

Regional ROC or CMC(ICM, TCM orCMAdepending onthe State).

Consultative. Catchmentstatus reports.

RES reports.

Natural resourcemanagement.

Strategic planning toprotect or enhance theenvironment and theregional economy.Planning and integration.

Community and industryinvolvement in ESD.

Industry sector Peak bodies,industrynetworks.

Peerinfluence,informational

Sector audits.BMP.

Codes etc.

R&D directions.

Revision and uptake ofBMP13.

Lobbying, promotion andmarketing.

Local LocalGovernmentAssociations(LGA).

Statutoryplanning,rating.

Variable - SoEand EMS.

Local planning.

Local Agenda 21.

Incentives and regulations.Provision of service andfacilities eg. recycling.

Enterprise orfarm

Owners. Commercialand propertylaw.

EMS &compliancereporting.

Farming and commercialresponsibilities and EMS.

Whole farm planning.

Compliance withlegislation, codes orregulations.

The strength of the framework, and the nested hierarchy it describes, is that itrecognises that:

n at all scales there is a need for sound information on the environment;

n activity at each scale influences the other scales;

n the PSR model is useful for informing environmental management at all scales;

n farmers and others at a local scale are not exclusively responsible forenvironmental management it is a collective responsibility;

n management, policy, regulatory and planning systems operate in a multi-dimensional, multi-scale, and interactive set of relationships; and

n effective management of the environment requires well-defined responsibilities atall scales.

In contrast to the neatness of the theoretical framework, in practice many factorsimpede effective linkages between knowledge, informed observation and appropriate

13 For an example of peak bodies playing a key role in promoting awareness and BMP see "Farmcare -cultivating a better future. Code of practice for sustainable fruit and vegetable production in Queensland"Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers (1998)



environmental management. When they manage to overcome the impediments,regional strategies can provide very useful roles by providing:

n clarity over the locus of responsibility between different levels of government,different agencies and the private sector;

n well defined targets for environmental management;

n well defined roles and responsibilities between numerous responsibleorganisations;

n a meta-regional management framework which can co-ordinate the plethora oforganisations, strategies and plans which overlap and attempt to addressinterrelated issues (for example the over 200 in the Wet Tropic Regions alone);

n adequate, targeted, monitoring programs, with clear management purposes, and

n more systematic approaches to managing, understanding and recordingecological processes.

Using the PSR Model at a Regional Scale

Adaptive management and SoE share common principles, particularly regarding therole that monitoring, review and revision can make towards improved management.

Cullen (1997) explains an adaptive approach to NRM by advocating that as a learningcommunity we accept interim solutions and "apply the organised scepticism" ofscience to test them against the outcomes they produce.

This should become the clarion call of the many delightful Australian sceptics whobelieve that governments or communities have no intention of fixing the environment.Cullen (1997) however, fails to advocate an approach to even arriving at interimsolutions. He does however identify the forces of darkness - greed, ignorance,institutional arrangements and fashions in government.

State of the Environment reporting is recognised by the OECD as a powerful tool forinforming decision-makers about how the environment is changing, the significance ofthe pressures and the effectiveness of human responses.

Overseas, both the OECD and the United Nations promote SoE reporting within theirmember countries, and in Australia, all States and Territories, except Victoria, haveformal SoE reporting systems (Alexandra, et al 1998). Governments' commitments toSoE reporting are based on the principle that better measurement and interpretation ofinformation about the state of the environment helps to improve managementresponses. In 1996, the Commonwealth government produced a National State of theEnvironment Report Australia: State of the Environment 1996 (Commonwealth ofAustralia 1996). This used the pressure-state-response model, developed by theOECD. The pressure-state-response model, as adapted for SoE reporting inAustralia, is illustrated in Figure 4.1.

The model relies on the use of indicators; simplified measures that represent keyelements of complex systems. They are usually chosen for specific purposes anddiffer from other measures in providing meaning that extends beyond the attributesdirectly measured. Indicators are physical, chemical, biological or socio-economicmeasures that are used to represent the key elements or processes of complexecosystems (ALGA 1997a).



Pressure indicators are selected from among human activities that affect a givenenvironment. Response indicators are selected from human responses. State, orcondition indicators, are selected for their ability to register changes in the environmentdue to the impacts of the pressures and the effectiveness of the responses.

Some important features of the pressure-state-response model are:

n Pressures are human activities that affect the environment. Natural events suchas floods, drought and non-anthropogenic fires are considered aspects of the stateof the environment.

n Responses are defined as actions taken by people in response to perceivedenvironmental problems or potential problems.

n The model is based on the concept of causality and both pressures andresponses affect the condition of the environment. Responses also affect thepressures on the environment.

The pressure-state-response model has acknowledged shortcomings. In particular,the implied cycle of cause and effect is simplistic and sharp distinctions cannot alwaysbe made between pressures, states and responses.



Figure 4.1 The PSR Model

PRESSURES

Human activities & impacts

Population x consumption xproduction methods andtechnology in:

EnergyTransportIndustryHousingAgricultureFisheriesOther

STATE

State or condition of theenvironment:

Inland WaterBiodiversityLand ResourcesEstuaries & the SeaAtmosphereNatural/ Cultural HeritageHuman Settlements

RESPONSES

Institutional &Individual responses

LegislationEconomic instrumentsNew technologiesChanging community valuesInternational obligationsOthers



A Modified PSR Model for Regional Use

Most local government, community groups and regional organisations are familiar withstrategic planning, based on issue identification, development of objectives and actionplans (ALGA 1997b). Few are familiar with the PSR model and its relevance toimplementing environmental strategies.

An adapted PSR model is in Figure 4.2. It is a fictional example that demonstrateshow farming businesses within a region may contribute to an integrated regionalstrategy addressing a priority environmental issue. The table demonstrates this usefulconceptual and reporting framework. The framework has been successfully trialed inseveral regions, including the Northern Rivers of NSW (Luckie 1998), where it hasproven useful for organising the range of pressure, states and responses. Theframework offers:

n integration of strategic planning and the PSR model;

n a systematic framework for describing issues and priorities whilst tracking thechanging pressures, conditions and responses;

n continual refinement of implementation strategies, and

n analytic tools and monitoring programs inherent in the PSR model.



Figure 4.2 The Modified PSR Model: Water Quality Examples of the Adaptive FrameworkLinking SoE and Strategy Development

Environmental value orissue

KEY ISSUE OR VALUE

Declining water quality inCreeks and rivers.

[Note ICM or CALP waterquality strategy]

→→

The cause of the issue, andindicators to monitor pressure

CAUSES OF THE ISSUE

1. Stormwater from urbanareas – quality of stormwater

1. Leaking septic tanks, No. ofleaking septics.

2. Intensive agriculture withincreased use of NPKfertilisers – No. of cows,amounts of NPK used.

3. Loss of riparian vegetation –Km of intact stream-sidebuffers.

→→

The environment condition andindicators to establish baselineand trends

CONDITION AND TREND

Water quality monitoring programsindicate poor conditionsthroughout the farming areas ofcatchment.

Water quality trend down. % timeof water quality standards in xnumber of creeks.

↑↑ ↓↓

Responses used to address theissue, or protect value

RESPONSE MONITORING

1. Water sensitive designstandards adopted.

2. $ Spent on storm waterimprovement

3. More than 50% of septicinspected annually.

4. No. of farmers using soiltests.

5. Timing of x% of applicationsin season. x

6. No. of dairy farms recyclingnutrient rich water.

7. Total length of streamsrevegetated.

Objectives re the issue

OBJECT / GOAL

1. No further decline in water qualitybelow the 1998 benchmark.

2. Where possible water quality inall creeks to improve.

3. No increase in nutrient exports fromfarms to rivers.

↑↑ ↓↓

Actions to meet this target

STRATEGIES or ACTIONS

1. Improve quality of stormwaterby retro-fitting older urban stormwatersystems. Adopt design code for newones. Install trash racks, wetlands andsediment traps.

2. Annual septic checks.3. Ag industry, processors work with NSW

Ag on nutrient plan4. Incentives for riparian restoration.

←← Reasonable target quantified if possible

TARGET

1. Restoration of water quality achieved for90% of monitoring sites by 2005.

2. Reduction in nutrient levelsin water in Creeks to below x particularly indrier months.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD BIBLIOGRAPHY - PAGE 107

BibliographyAACM International 1996, Cost Sharing Frameworks for On Ground Works, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

ABC Radio National Background Briefing, 22 September 1999.

ABS 1996, Australian Agriculture and the Environment, Australian Bureau of Statistics,Canberra.

Alexandra J. 1992 Water and the Environment in Australia, Water in Australia, Editedby Johnson, M. and Rix, S. Pluto Press, Sydney, Australia.

Alexandra J. 1994, New Zealand Legislates for Sustainable Development - Lessonsfor Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne.

Alexandra, J. Higgins, J. & White, T.1997, Environmental Indicators for National Stateof the Environment Reporting - Community and Local Use. Environment Australia SoEUnit. Canberra Australia.

Alexandra J., 1999, EMS for Australian Agriculture - Issues and Opportunities RIRDC.

ALGA 1996, Managing the Environment - A Practical Guide for Local Government toEMS and ISO 14001, Australian Local Government Association, Canberra.

ALGA 1997a, Choosing and Using Environmental Indicators, Environment Australia,Canberra.

ALGA 1997b, Regional Environmental Strategies—How to Prepare and ImplementThem, Australian Local Government Association, Canberra.

ANAO (Australian National Audit Office), 1997, Commonwealth Natural Resource andEnvironment Programs, AGPS Canberra.

ARMCANZ 1998, Management of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals: A NationalStrategy, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and NewZealand, AFFA, Canberra

Binning and Young 1998 and 1999 Series on Vegetation Incentives funded by NHTand LWRRDC.

Centre for Professional development 1995, Environmental Audit Guidebook, LawBook Group, Kew, Victoria Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1983, National Conservation Strategy, AGPS.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1990, Decade of Landcare Plan, AGPS.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1991a, The National Strategy for EcologicallySustainable Development, AGPS, Canberra

Commonwealth of Australia, 1991b, Ecologically Sustainable Development - ACommonwealth Discussion Paper, AGPS Canberra



Commonwealth of Australia, 1991c, Report of the ESD Working Group on Agriculture

Commonwealth of Australia 1992, Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment,Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1994, National Water Quality Management Strategy,Policies and Principles - A Reference Document, ANZECC, AWRC, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1996, Australia: State of the Environment, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 1996b, The National Strategy for the Conservation ofAustralia’s Biodiversity, Canberra.

Court J., Wright C., and Guthrie A. 1996, Environmental Assessment andSustainability: Are We Ready for the Challenge? Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, Volume 3, 1996.

CSIRO, 1989, Australia’s Natural Resources and Environment: An Outlook. INRE,Canberra

CSIRO 1990, CSIRO Rural Sector Report, CSIRO Canberra.

CSIRO 1998, Review of Water Quality and the Status of the Gippsland Lakes, CSIROMelbourne.

Cullen P., 1997, Water, Politics and Power - Can we Integrate NRM in RuralAustralia? CRCFE, Canberra.

Cullen P., 1998, Water in the Australian Environment: Ecology, Knowledge andReform. CRCFE Canberra.

Davidson B., 1962, Australia Wet and Dry.

Dore J., and Woodhill J.1998, Essential Characteristic of Regional Natural ResourcesManagement Strategies. Greening Australia, Canberra.

Dore J. & Woodhill J.1999, Sustainable Regional Development - An Australia widestudy of 'regionalism' highlighting efforts to improve the community, economy andenvironment of regions by regions, Greening Australia, Canberra.

Dovers S. 1996 ‘Processes and Institutions to Inform Decisions in the Longer Term’, inTracking Progress, Proceedings of the Australian Academy of Science FennerConference on the Environment, Oct 1996, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW,Sydney.

Dovers S. & Mobbs C., 1999, Social, Economic, Legal, Policy and Institutional R&D forNatural Resource Management: Directions For LWRRDC, LWRRDC OccasionalPaper 01/99, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation,Canberra.

Environment Australia 1996, Subsidies to the use of Natural Resources in Australia,Environmental Economics Research Paper No. 2, Environment Australia, Canberra.

Environment Australia 1998, Environmental Indicators for National State of theEnvironment Reporting - Inland Waters, Department of the Environment, Canberra.

French H., 1993, The GATT: Menace or Ally? World Watch, Sept/Oct 1993 Pages12-19, World Watch Institute Washington USA.



Government of New South Wales 1995, The State of the Environment: 1995 NSWGovernment Sydney.

Hamblin, A. 1991, Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture, DPIECanberra.

Hamblin, A. 1997, Proposed Indicators of Land Resources for National State of theEnvironment Reporting, CRC for Soil and Land Management. Adelaide SA 1997

Hare W.J., Marlow, J.P Gray F, Ledgar R and Raem L, 1990, Ecologically SustainableDevelopment, ACF, Greenpeace Australia, The Wilderness Society, World Wide Fundfor Nature Australia, Melbourne.

Heiler T., 1998, Sustainability of Irrigation, Australian Irrigation Industry ConferenceProceedings, pages 159-166.

Hogarth M. Not Waving Drowning, the Age Magazine 19/12/98, The Age, Melbournepp. 28-33.

IIED 1990, The Food Question, Earthscan Publications, IIED, London.

Industry Commission. 1992, Water Resources and Wastewater Disposal, IndustryCommission, Melbourne.

Industry Commission. 1996, State, Territory and Local Government Assistance toIndustry - Draft Report, Industry Commission, Melbourne.

Industry Commission 1998, A Full Repairing Lease - Inquiry Into EcologicallySustainable Land Management, Report No. 60, 1998 Industry Commission,Melbourne.

Industry Commission 1999, Implementation of ESD by Commonwealth Departmentsand Agencies , draft Report, Industry Commission, Melbourne.

Institute of Environmental Studies 1996, Tracking Progress, Proceedings of theAustralian Academy of Science, Fenner Conference, on the Environment, Oct 1996,Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW, Sydney.

Johnson A.K.L., Cowell S.G., Loneragan N.R. and Dews G., 1999, Sustainable

Development for Tropical Australia, LWRRDC Occasional Paper, Land and WaterResources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Lockie S. and Vanclay F. 1997, Critical Landcare, Charles Sturt University, WaggaNSW.

Luckie K., 1998, Northern Rivers Regional Environmental Indicators DevelopmentReport - Final Report, NOROC. Lismore, NSW.

LWRRDC, 1996, Riparian Management Guidelines, LWRRDC Canberra.

LWRRDC, 1998a, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in Australia, LWRRDCCanberra.

LWRRDC, 1988b, Data Sheets On Natural Resources Management, LWRRDCOccasional Paper 11/98, Land and Water Resources Research and DevelopmentCorporation, Canberra.



Maher M., Cooper S. and Nichols P., 1999, River Restoration and ManagementLegislative Frameworks: An Analysis of Australian and International Experience,Prepared by Maher & Cooper Environmental Planners, LWRRDC, Canberra.

MBCWQMST – BCC, 1998, The Crew Members Guide to the Health of ourWaterways, Brisbane City Council, 1998.

NZ Ministry for the Environment, 1991, New Zealand Resource Management: Guideto the Act, New Zealand.

NZ Ministry for the Environment, 1991b, New Zealand Resource Management:Regional Policy Statements and Plans, New Zealand.

MDBC, 1999, Murray Darling Basin Salinity Audit, MDBC Canberra.

Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, 1998, Farmcare - cultivating a better future.Code of practice for sustainable fruit and vegetable production in Queensland,Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers, Brisbane.

Ralston Saul J., 1994, Unconscious Civilisation, Penguin Books.

Rickson R., Burch D. and Sanders R., New and Emerging Structures in Agriculture:Challenges and Opportunities for Natural Resources Management in the Proceedingof the 2nd National Workshop on Catchment Management. River-basin ManagementSociety, Melbourne.

Rutherfurd I., Ladson A., Tilleard J., Stewardson M., Ewing S., Brierly G., and FyrirsK., 1998. Research and Development Needs for River Restoration in Australia,LWRRDC, Canberra.

Stockholm Environment Institute, 1993, World Water in Crisis, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, UK.

Sachs W., 1992, Development a Guide to the Ruins, New Internationalist, June 1992.

SCARM 1998, Sustainable Agriculture - Assessing Australia's Recent Performance,SCARM technical report 70, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.

Schmiede D., 1999, Queensland Land and Water management plans Rip Rap No 13,LWRRDC Canberra.

Scott F., Kaine G., Stringer R. and Anderson K., 1998, Sustainability in a commercialcontext: Potential for innovative market based approaches, LWRRDC OccasionalPaper 19/98, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation,Canberra.

Senate Standing Committee on the Arts, Sport, Recreation and the Environment,1993, Final Report on Water Resources/Toxic Algae, AGPS.

SoE 1996, Australia: State of the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment Development), 1992, Agenda21, UNEP.

UNEP, 1986, The Encroaching Desert, Zed Books, London.

WA Government, 1998, West Australian State Salinity Strategy WA GovernmentPerth.



William R. and Walcott J., 1998, Environmental Benchmarks for Agriculture? Clarifyingthe Framework in a Federal System - Australia, Landuse Policy Elsevier Science,London, Vol. 15, No. 2, Pages 149-163.

World Commission on Environment and Development, Brundtland Commission, 1987,Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Young M.D. and McCoy B., 1995, Building Equity, Stewardship, and Resilience intoMarket Based Property Rights Systems, in Property Rights and the Environment,CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra.


PPK ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE PTY LTD APPENDICES

Appendices

Appendix 1 Terms of Reference

Appendix 2 Project Site Selection Procedure

Appendix 3 Site Visits Training Package

Appendix 4 Site Validation Form

Appendix 5 Note to Consultants

Appendix 6 Evaluation Questionnaire

Appendix 7 Validator’s Questionnaire

Appendix 8 Evaluation Data

Appendix 9 Summary of Validator’s Comments

Appendix 10 People Consulted During the Review

Appendix 11 List of Projects Reviewed

URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY

MD 2001 SITE VISITS TRAINING PACKAGE

Appendix One: Terms of Reference

Scope

The consultant will report on all aspects of MD2001 from commencement to June 1999 at local,regional/catchment, State and national levels. The review will not address administrative efficiency,as this issue will be covered in a separate review of the NHT Administration.

Objectives and Purpose

The objectives of the Mid-Term Review, as stated in the Consultancy Brief were to:

1. Determine the extent to which Program activities have contributed to the achievement ofMD2001 objectives and NHT objectives, with particular emphasis in improvement in on-groundoutcomes, enhancement of community capacity for change and catalytic effects of capitalinvestment.

2. Assess the quality of performance information available and identify requirements for ongoingperformance information.

3. Address issues of Program improvement.

The consultancy brief also stated seven key issues to be addressed by the Review,which were:

4. The continuing appropriateness of MD2001 objectives in meeting stakeholder needs and themix of projects funded;

5. Examination of the linkages between outputs and outcomes, particularly when these are of along term nature;

6. Identification of any unintended outcomes of the MD2001, both positive and negative and howthey are/can be handled;

7. The extent to which MD2001 has enabled communities and governments to be aware,understand and participate in choices regarding issues the sustainable use of naturalresources in the Murray-Darling Basin;

8. The extent to which MD2001 has contributed to the adoption of ecologically sustainable landand water management practices, particularly by incorporation into integratedregional/catchment planning and development frameworks;

9. The extent to which riverine issues have been integrated with land and vegetationmanagement issues so as to contribute to sustainable agriculture outcomes; and

10. The extent to which MD2001 has contributed to water quality and ecological health of rivers soas to contribute to broader environmental outcomes.

The Review objectives and key issues have been considered together as the Terms ofReference (TOR).



Appendix Two: Project Site Selection Procedure

The selection will take place via a stratified random sampling process. The aim is to ensurean adequate coverage of States, size of projects (NHT $), organisation conducting the project(government or community group), project type (on ground works, planning, education etc),and type of production/activities (irrigation, dryland, riverine). The last criterion is optional.

The Program Steering Committee Chair has requested that if possible at least 60% of theprojects over $200,000 are sampled, with a 10-20% sampling overall (approximately 80projects).

The process will use an excel spreadsheet, which lists the projects by the above criteria.From this we know the proportions of projects within each category (both by number andvalue). Note that the project types are taken from the title, which may result in somemisclassifications. This risk is considered acceptable. The project location is also difficult toascertain from the information available.

Visits will be grouped according to location. That is, if one project is selected at a certainlocation then all the projects in the near vicinity will be visited. The PPK team is also visitingprojects as part of the Inland Rivers and the Urban Thematic Reviews. The MD2001 andRivercare projects that are around these locations will automatically be selected.

The general procedure is:n Projects are grouped into Statesn need to account for regions within States which are quite different/face different issuesn Projects will be sorted on the basis of budget and place into appropriate categoriesn Within budget categories projects will be sorted on the basis of locationn The process will start with the >200,000 categoryn When selecting projects the following procedure will be followed

< If a location (town) is already to be visited, all projects occurring around that town willbe selected

< The remaining locations will be randomly selected< This process will repeat until the required number of projects has been selected in

each State.

Note: On each occasion after projects are selected around a certain town, the number ofprojects selected within other categories (i.e. project type and organisation) will be examined.Once sufficient projects within these categories have been selected, all other projects that fallwithin these categories will be excluded from selection. This will ensure that the randomisedprocess does not lead to the selection of too many projects in one particular category, whichmay influence the final conclusions drawn.



Appendix Three: Site Visits Training Package

NHT Mid-Term Review

Murray-Darling 2001 Program

Site visits for MD 2001:Training package



Contents1 Purpose of evaluation......................................................................................71.1 Hierarchy of Intended Results of the MD2001 Program ...............................81.2 Relationship of Murray Darling 2001 Objectives to Trust Objectives .........92 General behaviour in relation to site visits.....................................................92.1 Preparation......................................................................................................92.2 Things to take .................................................................................................93 Information to collect .......................................................................................93.1 The Site Validation Form................................................................................9

3.1.1 Instructions from NHT........................................................................103.2 Instructions for the additional MD 2001 questionnaire ..............................11

3.2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................113.2.2 Performance Indicators, MD2001.......................................................113.2.3 Evaluation Objectives and the additional questionnaire .................123.2.4 Questions to ask about the context ..................................................12

What sort of project is it?............................................................................................... 12Setting the scene ............................................................................................................ 12Questions to ask about collaboration and integration............................................... 12Questions to ask about inputs ...................................................................................... 133.4 Questions to ask in relation to the specific needs of the MD 2001 ...........13

3.4.1 Revegetation activities .......................................................................13Riparian zones (OL and OW projects) .......................................................................... 13Revegetation activity in strategic areas (OL projects)................................................ 13Viability of native riverine species and communities (OW projects) ........................ 13Best management practices (BMPs) and efficient farming systems and techniques

(S & OL projects) and level of adoption of more efficient farming systemsand techniques (OL projects)....................................................................... 13

Property management plans (S, P and OL projects) .................................................. 13Changes in land use activity (OL projects) .................................................................. 133.5 Site inspections ............................................................................................133.6 Questions for the evaluator .........................................................................133.7 Interviews with other stakeholders..............................................................133.8 Interviews with other stakeholders not on site (telephone).......................144 Recording the results ....................................................................................145 Team debrief...................................................................................................14


C:\TEMP\MTRLAND\MURRAY DARLING 2001 REPORT FOR NET.DOCPAGE 7

Aim: The purpose of the evaluation (as specified in the request for proposal) is to:

determine the extent to which Program activities have contributed to the achievement of MD2001 objectives andTrust objectives with a particular emphasis on improvement in on-ground outcomes, enhancement of communitycapacity for change, and catalytic effects of capital investment;

assess the quality of performance information available and identify requirements for ongoing performanceinformation; and

address issues of Program improvement.

In particular the following key issues need to be addressed:

the continuing appropriateness of Program objectives14 in meeting stakeholder needs and the mix of projectsfunded;

the linkage between outputs and outcomes, particularly when these are of a long term nature;

unintended results of the program, both positive and negative and how they are/can be handled;

the extent to which the program has enabled communities and governments to be aware, understand and ableto make informed economic, environmental and social choices regarding the sustainable use of naturalresources;

the extent to which the program has contributed to the adoption of sustainable natural resource managementpractices particularly by incorporation into regional/catchment planning and development frameworks;

the extent to which the program has contributed to sustainable agriculture outcomes; and

the extent to which the program has contributed to environmental outcomes.

4.4 1.1 Hierarchy of Intended Results of the MD2001 Program

Ultimate Outcomes of the Program as a Whole(beyond the direct control of MD2001)

14 The program objectives (See RFP) are: “The objectives of MD2001 are by working with all levels ofgovernment, industry and the community to improve the health of the Basin’s river systems through:

improving water quality by reducing the current salt and nutrient levels;

helping to ensure all Basin catchments have integrated catchment management plans for managing theirresources;

supporting on-ground works that address land and water degradation problems identified in catchmentstrategies;

restoring the health of riparian land systems, wetlands and flood plains by establishing environmental flows thatare capable of sustaining natural processes, protecting water quality and the aquatic environment;

improving the condition of key river systems in the Basin through integrated catchment management and flowmanagement strategies; and

encouraging long term productive land use in the Basin in balance with environmental protection by reducingsalinity and waterlogging in irrigated lands and dryland areas and encouraging the highest value use of scarcewater resources.



Goal: To contribute to the rehabilitation of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB), with a viewto achieving a sustainable future for the Basin, its natural systems and itscommunities.

Intermediate Outcomes(predominantly the aggregated effects of many projects i.e. the program)

Environment Outcomes Sustainable Production OutcomesImproved quality of the water resourcesfor environmental, consumptive andrecreational uses

Maintenance and enhancement of thesustainable productive capacity of theland resource base

Maintenance of ecological communitieswithin floodplain, wetland, riparian andinstream ecosystems

Development of a balance between landuse and land capabilities

Control or reversal of rising groundwatertables

Reduction in environmental degradationresulting from irrigation inducedsalinisation and waterlogging

Maintenance and improvement in dryland salinity Substantial reduction in salt, nutrient, sediment andpesticide exports from rural, urban and industrial sources

Maintenance and improvement of native vegetationcover

Improvement of the efficiency of irrigation water use

Maintenance of key ecological processesControl of threats to biodiversityIntegration and Institutional Outcomes People OutcomesSustainable land and water management practicesincorporated into integrated regional/catchment planningand development frameworks

Communities and governments enabled to make informedeconomic, environmental and social choices regarding thesustainable use of natural resources by providing the best

ESTABLISHMENT OF RIVER FLOWREGIMES THAT PROVIDE ASUSTAINABLE DISTRIBUTIONBETWEEN CONSUMPTIVE AND IN-STREAM REQUIREMENTS

available information and appropriate decision supporttools

Improvement of groundwater resource management

Outputs of Projects: Products, Services, Plans, Information- Co-ordinated on-ground actions by community groups to improve water quality in local rivers- maintain or improve water quality by preventing pollution (such as trapping sediments or nutrients), improving the

management of discharges or controlling stock access to rivers.- manage accelerated erosion or build-up of riverbanks or beds (where it is ecologically and hydrologically sound to

do so).- contribute to healthy stream and riparian ecosystems.- Large, integrated projects involving a range of stakeholders, including community groups, local shires

and agencies, to improve river management with biodiversity and sustainable production benefits- Projects focusing on addressing key water quality and nutrient management issues in catchment

context, projects focusing on stormwater management as part of the water cycle- Activities focusing on developing water course management and strategic activities relating to

environmental flows- Participation by communities in training and Landcare- Implementation of weed and feral pest management/control programs for the riverine environment (esp.

European Carp)- Development of comprehensive Catchment Management Plans- Develop actions to improve the efficiency of irrigation techniques and crops- Activities to develop alternative farming techniques and uses for waterlogged and salinised land



Relationship of Murray Darling 2001 Objectives to Trust Objectives

Due to the way MD2001 has been established its objectives will link in well with the three NHT objectives15. MD2001 will serveto (1) accelerate capital investment within the Basin area, (2) achieve synergies between natural resource management, sustainableagricultural practices and environmental protection and (3) work within increasing catchment planning. Therefore, the programwill closely meet the three objectives of the NHT.

Preparation

The NHT will be sending out a letter to the co-ordinators of all projects to be visited (PPK will be sending letters to the State co-ordinators). It would be preferable if you can call the co-ordinator about one week after these NHT letters have been forwarded.As soon as possible, you should call to make an appointment. Calling times for landholders extend to about 8 pm. and can beginat 8 am. Indeed most farmers who do not carry mobiles expect that they will make their phone calls between 7:30 am and 9 am,between 12:30 p.m. and 2 p.m. and between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. Calling times for others (who do not use their domestic phone) canbe at any time, since if they are not there you can leave a message on the answer-phone.The contact person may not be a full time employee and may have a completely different job to hold down. Equally he/she maybe a farmer in the middle of shearing, or some other seasonal crisis. So you may not be able to arrange a convenient date to gettogether. If this is the case then you will have to substitute another site from the reserve list of sites. If you cannot keep theappointment for any reason then call the contact person immediately you know and make another appointment.During that phone conversation make sure that you have agreement on where and when you are going to meet. Have a map of thearea beside you while making the call so that you can work out some of the problems of locating the place where you will meet.The most important point about what to wear is to remember that, in the course of your site validation, you may be trekking acrosswaterlogged fields, or other difficult areas in rainy weather (after all you are, in their eyes, someone from Canberra and thereforeto be tested). So either wear or take adequate protective gear for such situations. Apart from that, dress with a little formality, asyou are a professional. “Smart country” wear is appropriate.The schedule calls for two site visits per day, but that is likely to be made up of some days when you might achieve four site visitsand some where you will only get one. So it is advisable to get to the first one as early as you can arrange it. Remember there isquite a possibility of getting lost, even with the best of instructions. If you are early there may be time for a cup of coffee!

5.1 2.2Things to take

• These notes;• Interview guides/proformas;• NHT application forms, plus any details of the particular application for the project being visited;• Maps of the area, or those on file;• Recording forms, pens, etc• Camera and film (for on-ground works) – As a courtesy, ask permission to take photos. The photos are likely to be useful

only where you have a “before” photo to compare it to or for presentation purposes in the final report.

The information to collect falls into three categories, the information in the Site Validation Form (SVF), additional informationrelevant to the MD 2001 and casual observations.

6.1 3.1The Site Validation Form

The SVF was developed by the NHT and will be administered by all who visit projects. Completing it is a requirement.6.1.1 3.1.1 Instructions from NHT

The following instructions were issued by the NHT concerning the SVF:“The purpose of this attachment is to clarify the Commonwealth's expectations on the Site Visit Validation Form and to providesome additional information to assist consultants use it.

15 The RFP states that the objectives of the NHT are to:• provide a framework for strategic capital investment, to stimulate additional investment in the natural environment;• achieve complementary environment protection, natural resource management and sustainable agriculture outcomes consistentwith agreed national strategies; and• provide a framework for co-operative partnerships between communities, industry and all levels of government.



Site VisitsIt is envisaged that each consultant will conduct site visits to evaluate their particular theme or program. As part of the site projectvisit, the consultant will complete a standard questionnaire for the purpose of activity/output validation. This questionnaire is asprovided by the Commonwealth. For each site visit, the consultant will be provided with a copy of the proponent's application andprogress reports. They will also be provided with a printout of the output data that has been previously supplied by proponents onapplication or progress reports.The standardised questionnaire has two purposes.First, it provides the basis for an assessment by the consultant of the extent to which the project is undertaking the activities andproducing the outputs specified in their application and/or progress reports.Second, it provides the data to adjust or validate the aggregate data entered on the database across Natural Heritage Trust orprogram or theme output data.To achieve these ends it is expected that the consultant will enter the data from the questionnaire into a standardised databaseformat provided by the Commonwealth. This will enable aggregation across programs and themes. The consultant will alsoprovide an assessment based on the data they collect in a section of their report. There will be aspects of the project not covered bythe questionnaire and consultants, in consultation with review steering committees, are expected to formulate further questionsto meet the needs of each individual review.Issues specific to the administration of the Site Validation QuestionnaireThis form is not to be given to the proponent: it is for consultants to complete using their observations, experience, generalconversation on site and only as a last resort, direct questioning. It is acknowledged that many of the questions will be difficult toanswer and we are relying heavily on the judgement of the consultants to provide us with at least indicative trends. Similarly,consultants are free to complete the questionnaire questions in any order and at an appropriate time in the context of the whole sitevisit.Question 1. Which NHT Broad Outcomes Area does the project address?(Tick all relevant areas – but only if a reasonably significant contribution)

While most projects can in some sense be regarded as covering all these four areas, we are looking only forsignificant contributions. It may be useful to leave this question to last when the consultant will have a good feelfor the actuality of the project rather than what has been written.

(i) Questions 2 – 6

Consultant's judgement is required to enter the current situation to validate the application/report form.(Note: Q2 - To supplement the Site Validation form we would like to get some stronger indication of the background planning thatlead to this project being funded.It is very likely that there will be a general “yes” answer to this question, so a little more probing might benefit. Questions, suchas “Can you show me the plan?” or “What is the next step?” or “How does this fit in to the regional / river plan?” or “Who didyou consult in your proposal preparation?” might give you some impression of whether funding this project was made in thecontext of a regional plan.

Q6 - Most of the information for this should come from the discussion in setting the scene, but it may benecessary to find out a little more about whether the level of support could have been improved as well asthe involvement of other parties.)Question 7. Project Workplan and MilestonesA combination of consultant's observation and proponent responses will establish the achievements and timing. However, it issuggested that the 'reasons' for each result be elicited without prompting, with the categories in the form being used for codingonly. In this way we hope to gain a rough prioritisation of reasons rather than a compendium of complaints. In some instances thereason for delay will be the late receipt of funding. This may be a sore point with proponents (and was raised at the NHTStakeholders’ meeting last week) and the issue will need to be handled sensitively.

(Note: The original NHT application form for 1997/98 asked for identification of “the milestones youpropose to use to gauge progress”. In the application form for 1998-9 there is no request for milestonesto be given. So do not be surprised when the answer to the question is “What milestones?” The projectmight have generated its own milestones, which may or may not be the same as the milestones in the1997/98 application.)Question 8. Project OutputsConsultants are asked to estimate the current situation. We recognise that as a validation tool this can only give indicative resultsbecause of the physical difficulty of estimating accurately and because of the time lag between latest report date and site visit date.However we are confident that aggregated results across all sites visited in the Mid Term Review (MTR) can be of use ininterpreting the database.



6.2 3.2Instructions for the additional MD 2001 questionnaire

6.2.1 3.2.1 Introduction

The site validation form supplied by the NHT concentrates on measurable achievements in relation to the funds supplied by theNHT. In many or most cases the project will have a history that will go back before the NHT funding was received (how elsewould a proposal for NHT funding have been formulated?). In order to understand what can be attributed to the NHT it will benecessary to put the project in context.There are issues that need to be covered by this questionnaire that are specific to the MD 2001 Program, particularly in relation tothe strategic planning context (Q2 of the site validation form).6.2.2 3.2.2 Performance Indicators, MD2001

These are the performance indicators written into the Partnership Agreement for NSW, Section 5, which are similar enough tothose for the other States. The notes in italics are to demonstrate the degree to which these can be answered.5.1 The Basin Sustainability Program includes a range of performance indicators which have been developed against the three

sub-program areas (Irrigation, Dryland, and Riverine) and the key result areas of sustainable agriculture productivity, waterquality and nature conservation. The following performance indicators are considered highly relevant to the core priorities ofMD2001 and will be further developed to reflect Basin Sustainability Program objectives.

5.2 Integration and Institutional:e) Extent of implementation of agreed flow regime with monitoring and evaluation of river health (In the Site validation form

Q8-14 and Q8-17 Providing water for river health (environmental flows and wetlands) and the monitoring question in“Achievements” are relevant).

f) Basin-wide vegetation management and retention policy developed and incorporated in catchment management plans (This isnot an issue that can be asked of a Project, except where the output is a catchment plan. It adds to the necessity of gettingsome detail into the answer to Q2).

g) Extent to which groundwater management strategies are included in catchment management plans and are being implemented(This could be a supplementary question for planning projects – in the case of Liverpool Plains it is obviously present, but itwould not be present in most).

h) Number of catchments with comprehensive catchment management plans implemented, including disposal, reuse andtreatment of urban sewerage and stormwater. (Again this is not a question at the Project level and the number would be zeroor non-existent for most of the Basin at this time. There are no questions in the Site validation form about sewerage or urbanstormwater.)

5.3 Environmental:h) Improvements in water quality as specified in Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters for turbidity,

salt, blue-green algae, phosphorus (Questions 8-13 and 8-14 of the site validation form are relevant).i) Health of riverine environments assessed against agreed indices. (So there needs to be a question on agreed indices, as well as

answering Q8-14 and Q8-17 and the monitoring question in “Achievements”).j) Extent of riparian buffer strips replanted and remnant riparian vegetation fenced. (Q8-11 and Q8-12 cover this issue).k) Extent of implementation of other revegetation activities in strategic areas. (This can be the subject of detailed questions in

this additional questionnaire).l) Level of salt, nutrient and pesticide loads less than or equal to mandated levels. (Questions 8-13 and 8-14 of the site validation

form are relevant, as well as the monitoring question in “Achievements”).m) Rate of groundwater rise. (See questions 8-15 & 8-16)n) Improved viability of native riverine species and communities. (This can be the subject of detailed questions in this additional

questionnaire).5.4 Sustainable Productiong) Area of land assessed for current land use against land capability (See Q 8-19).h) Area of land utilised in accordance with its capabilities (See Q8-19).i) Coverage by regional/catchment plans incorporating sustainable land and water management practices (At the project level

one can distinguish between projects that are developing catchment plans and projects where one can ask about the existenceof a catchment plan – Q2).

j) Level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniques (This will have to be approached by questions additionalto Q 8-18 & Q8-19).

k) Level of adoption of higher value crops for water used (e.g. replacement of dairy farming with horticulture).l) Sustained regional productivity (It will be extremely difficult to assess this with most projects).

5.5 People:d) Level of information provided on best management practices and efficient farming systems and techniques (This would only

be relevant to projects with a purpose to extend this information).e) Number of participants in property management plan courses (This would only be relevant to projects with a purpose to

extend this information).



f) Number of communities engaged in integrated monitoring activities within the Basin (This can be assessed by Q6, provided inthe answer to that question the degree of integrated monitoring activities is elucidated).

3.2.3 Evaluation Objectives and the additional questionnaire

These are the statements made in the PPK proposal. They are similar to those listed in the NSW PartnershipAgreement. They were: “Our evaluation methodology will be developed to achieve the following program-specific outcomes:

1. The impact of the Program on improving water quality by reducing salt and nutrient levels (covered above).

2. The extent to which all Basin catchments have integrated catchment management plans for managing their resources(covered above).

3. The extent and nature of on-ground works that address land and water degradation problems identified in catchmentstrategies (This requires some more detailed examination of Q2).

4. The impact of the Program on the restoration of riparian land systems, wetlands and flood plains, through establishingsustainable environmental flows (covered above).

5. Improvement in the condition of key river systems in the Basin through integrated catchment management and flowmanagement strategies (covered above).

6.2.3 3.2.4 Questions to ask about the context

What sort of project is it?

From the Project title and application forms with which you will be provided prior to the visit, it should be possible to determinethe sort of project that you are visiting. This will determine the sorts of questions that you need to ask. For example a planningproject will have outputs of plans and no on-ground works to inspect. The site visit will involve talking to those concerned withdevelopment and implementation of the plan (not necessarily the same people). The questions that need to be asked are aboutownership and acceptability. On the other hand a project involving on-ground works in many cases will have sites to visit to viewthe works. A staffing project will require questions about the duty statement in the proposal (if there is one) and the degree towhich this duty statement has been followed or changed.The following appears to be the general categories of projects:• Inventory & Planning (P);• On-ground – water and wetlands (OW);• On-ground – land (OL); and• Staffing, teaching and education (S).However these categories may well overlap in any one project.

Setting the scene

The best way to start the conversation is to ask what lead to the application to the NHT. This will help to answer some of thequestions in the site validation form. There will, of course be many side issues that will be raised and we cannot clearlydistinguish between those that are worth recording and those that are not.The points to note are:

When did the project start (year)?What funding had been obtained prior to the current NHT Grant and from whom?If yes, then what was achieved with this funding?If yes, then how did the NHT application build on these achievements?Has any funding been obtained subsequently?

How does this proposal fit into the regional context (like – if it is a proposal to pay a coordinator - how manycoordinators / facilitators are there in the district? Do you and how do you integrate your work? Is this partof a regional plan? etc.)

Questions to ask about collaboration and integration

This last question could well lead on to some discussion about the degree of collaboration and integration with other projects, withthe plan at the next level of organisation upwards and downwards.

Questions to ask about inputs

The SVF is not particularly interested in recording inputs apart from recording under Q4 “Recording of activities”. To gain betterunderstanding of the degree of community support for a project (Q6) it would be worthwhile to explore what sorts of inputs there



has been to the project from the community, from commercial organisations, from local and state government. This will help toidentify the answers to Q6 Involvement and support.

6.3 3.4Questions to ask in relation to the specific needs of the MD 2001

These questions will only be relevant to projects where the particular activities have been pursued. Data recorded in the NHTApplication Forms (Question 9, 1998-99) will be useful in determining relevant sets of questions.6.3.1 3.4.1 Revegetation activities

Riparian zones (OL and OW projects)

MD 2001 is particularly interested in riparian replanting and note should be taken of any that has taken place in the sites visited.Otherwise the relevant information should be contained in answers to Q8-11, 8-12, 8-15 and 8-16.

Revegetation activity in strategic areas (OL projects)

No strict definition has been provided regarding “strategic areas”, and these are expected to vary from year to year (depending onthe funding round). It has been suggested that this definition would need to be tightened up in future years.Most information in this regard should be picked up in the standardised questionnaire, (e.g. being part of a plan) although anynotes should be taken during visits of revegetation that does not look very strategic.Q8-15 and 8-16 should contain all the relevant information.

Viability of native riverine species and communities (OW projects)

Questions 8-5, 8-13 and 8-14 are relevant.

Best management practices (BMPs) and efficient farming systems and techniques (S & OL projects)and level of adoption of more efficient farming systems and techniques (OL projects)

To an extent the employment of facilitators has an objective of achieving these goals which, given the many other activities offacilitators, may be high or low on the facilitator’s task list. Most on-ground projects could argue that they are putting in placeBMPs.

Property management plans (S, P and OL projects)

This might also be contained in projects aimed at BMPs. There seems to be little reference to MD 2001 projects funding PMP.

Changes in land use activity (OL projects)

There are two ways in which changes in changes in land use information are needed, firstly for recording deep rooted vegetation(Q8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, 8-21), but in addition there is a need to find out whether there is an increase in the level of adoption of highervalue crops for the water used (mainly in irrigation areas).

6.4 3.5Site inspections

The main thing to look out for is visual evidence that supports any claims that are being made. Any anomalies should be noted.Fraud is unlikely to be an issue, but it should be reported if it is suspected. It is not necessary to go through bank details, etc.

6.5 3.6Questions for the evaluator

At the end of the interview and visit, there are a number of questions that are worth asking yourself. These are listed on thebottom of the questionnaire. Notes should be added as necessary.

6.6 3.7 Interviews with other stakeholders

These should be conducted after the site visit and collection of data. The list provided by PPK in its proposal consists of:n State environment, land use planning and natural resource management agency personnel

n Catchment planning group members

n Resource managers (farmers, water/river authorities, etc)



n Landcare group members

n Conservation group members

n Local Government representatives

n Relevant industry groups representatives

n Members of local business and the general community.

FINDING OUT WHO SHOULD BE CONSULTED IN RELATION TO A PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL HAVETO BE DONE AT INTERVIEW. IT WILL NOT BE NECESSARY TO CONSULT EACH OF THESESTAKEHOLDERS IN EACH LOCATION. SOME STAKEHOLDERS WILL COVER MORE THAN ONEPROJECT/PROGRAM. IT IS ESSENTIAL TO LIASE WITH PPK TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO GAPSOR DUPLICATIONS IN THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH.

These stakeholders can be called when time is available. The subjects to be discussed will be very wide and depend on the groupsbeing interviewed. But remember in selecting and talking to these people that the output from the interview will be difficult if notimpossible to code. So the information will be qualitative and will have to be inserted into the text of the report. It will only beworth reporting if there is some pattern, or some extreme view. The main points to record are the overall “key messages”. Spaceis left at the bottom of the questionnaire for these messages to be recorded. It is NOT necessary to give a detailed account of whateach stakeholder thinks about the Program or the project(s).Probably the most important lines to follow are:• What contact have you had with Program or this project?• Has this been in the context of regional planning?• What do you think the MD2001 project(s) has achieved?• Has it had broader community involvement?• The importance of the project to them, as individuals?• Is it meeting your needs as a stakeholder, and those of the community in general?• How could it better meet your/community’s needs?• The degree to which the project is changing resource management in the wider area?• [Are there any problems/impediments that you are aware of?]

6.7 3.8 Interviews with other stakeholders not on site (telephone)

Telephone interviewing tips:• always say how long it will take,• keep questions simple,• ask for supporting information to be sent,• take notes and record the key messages later.

The general process means that:• Hard copies of the questionnaires are to be checked, and completed as needed, each night after the visit.• Data must be entered into an excel spreadsheet (see attached). Only the grey boxes should be filled in for each question.• The excel spreadsheet should be submitted to PPK (Julianne) three days after completion of site visits in that region.

Round table discussion on main points, themes that might be analysed.



Appendix Four: Site Validation Form

NATURAL HERITAGE TRUSTMID TERM REVIEW

Site validation form

Review Title:

NHT Project No.

.........................

Project Title(use the same title asin original projectapplication)

Site Location

Name ofOrganisation

Contact Address

Project ManagerPh: Fax:

Project’s ActualStart Date(month/year)

Expected CompletionDate

MONTH/YEAR 8.1 Dateof LatestReport

MONTH/YEAR

8.2

8.3 Sitevisit date

month/year



This form is to be completed byconsultants conducting site visits for theMid-term Review of the Natural HeritageTrust.

Assessor/s:......................................................................Date:...........................................



8.3.1 1. Which NHT Broad Outcomes Area does the project address? (Tick relevant areas – butonly if a reasonably significant contribution)

¨ 1.Integration and Institutions - integrated, co-operative and strategic approaches to investment in ecologicallysustainable management of land, water, and marine resources and environments;

¨ 2.Environment - biodiversity conservation and improved long-term protection and management of environmentalresources, including aquatic plants and animals, representative ecosystems and World Heritage values;

¨ 3.Sustainable production - maintenance of, and improvement to, the sustainable productive capacity of Australia’senvironmental and natural resource base; and

¨ 4.People - a community empowered to invest in, and take responsibility for, ecologically sustainable use of its naturalresources.

2. Strategic Planning Context

Is the project being undertaken as part of a plan or strategy?o action plan o catchment management plan/strategy o regional plan/strategy o state plan/strategyo national plan/strategy o other…………………………………………………..

3. Communication strategy Dissemination of project findings and acknowledgment of NHT funding supportAre project findings being disseminated appropriately as indicated in the communication strategyo Not yet o Partially o Yes.............................................................................................................................................………………………………………...............................................................................................................................................……………………………………….

8.4 3(a) Is there evidence of NHT acknowledgment in terms of signage and otheracknowledgment

o Little or none o Some o Yes.............................................................................................................................................……………………………………….

8.5 4. Monitoring and evaluation

Is there evidence of information being systematically collected for the purpose of project monitoring, evaluation and reporting?IN PARTICULAR HAVE THE FOLLOWING BEEN RECORDED o RECORDING INITIAL CONDITIONo RECORDING OF ACTIVITIESo MONITORING TREND IN CONDITION o MEASURING LONGER TERM IMPACT o OTHER

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.6 5. Maintenance of project and follow on

Have follow-up plans been developed to ensure the results of the project are maintained when NHT funding ceases?o not developed o partially developed o yes developedComments.............................................................................................................................................……………………………...............................................................................................................................................…………………………………………

6. Involvement and SupportWho has been included/involved in the project? (Tick)oA landholders oB other community groups oC regional/State authorities - specify……………………………….oD local government oE industry oF universities oG schoolsoH other – specify……………………………………………..



Describe the nature and extent of the involvement?.............................................................................................................................................………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Could or should the level of involvement have been improved? In what way?.............................................................................................................................................……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Could other parties have been usefully involved?.............................................................................................................................................………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

8.6.1

8.6.2 7. Agreed Milestones from Project Workplan: List the milestones and score activities achieved and timing with reasons

9. % of ActivitiesAchievedScore 1-31 = less than half2 = more than half3 = 100%

9.1 Timing

Score 1–31= 7 months or morebehind2= 4-6 months behind

3= LESS THAN 3MONTHS

REASONS MILESTONES NOT ACHIEVED:BIOPHYSICAL (A), FUNDING/FINANCIAL (B), HUMANRESOURCE (C), PLANNING (D), REGULATIONS (E),OTHER (F)*SEE BELOW FOR FURTHER DETAILS

1.

2.

3.

4.Etc

*BIOPHYSICAL (A) EG CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, SOIL/WATER, BIOLOGICAL (INCL WEEDS) FUNDING/FINANCIAL (B) EG FUNDS NOT PROVIDED ON SCHEDULE, INABILITY TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT ETC HUMAN RESOURCES (C) EG UNFAVOURABLE GROUP DYNAMICS, LACK OF LABOUR PLANNING (D) EG INAPPROPRIATE PROJECT PLANNING INAPPROPRIATE FINANCIAL PLANNING REGULATIONS (E) EG LOCAL OR STATE/TERRITORY GOVERNMENT

8. Project Outputs

ACTIVITY OUTPUTS

Management of existing native vegetation/habitat(includes grasslands, woodland, forests, wetlands, aquatic, riparian zone etc)

Proposed inapplication form

Achieved by latestreport

ActualObserved (Estimated)

1) What is the total area of existing vegetation/habitat protected and/or enhanced by your project? ha ha2) What agreements, if any, have been/will be put in place to protect the vegetation/habitat at (1) for the long

term? (indicate what area will be under each agreement type)o voluntary management agreemento covenant on titleo formal national park or reserve

____ ha____ ha____ ha

____ ha____ ha____ ha

3) How much, if any, of the area protected or enhanced at (1) is habitat for threatened species or communities? Is this area covered by any agreements listed in (2)?

____ ha

o Yes r No

____ ha

r Yes r No

4) If you are protecting and/or enhancing the habitat of threatened species or communities, what methods have been used to increase population numbers or extent of occurrence of the species or community in the wild?• reduction in feral pests or weeds• changes to management regime (eg fire)• reintroduction or translocation

o o o

o o o o

5) If your project is aimed at restocking native fish, how many fingerlings are being/will be used; how old are they; and are the fish species native to the area?• number of fingerlings used• age of fingerlings used• fish species native to the area

No. _____Age _____r Yes r No

No. _____Age _____r Yes r No

ACTIVITY OUTPUTS

Proposed inapplication form

Achieved by latestreport

ActualObserved

(Estimated)

Re-establishment of native vegetation/habitat (includes grasslands, woodland, forests, wetlands, aquatic, riparian zone etc)

6) What area of native vegetation/habitat that has been/will be re-established by your project? ____ ha ____ ha

7) What area of this native vegetation/habitat links existing areas of native habitat? ____ ha ____ ha

8) What is the main method you have used/will use for re-establishing habitat? (tick one or more boxes) o • natural regeneration• hand or mechanical direct seeding• tubestock planting. 8a) How many tubestock/seedlings have you planted?

o o o number _____

o o o number ____

9) Are you mostly using species that occur naturally in the local area? r Yes r No r Yes r No

Fencing

10) If you are using fencing to protect existing and/or new native vegetation/habitat, what length has been/will beestablished?

11) What length of this fence protects (usually on both sides) a stream or riparian zone?12) If you are establishing native vegetation within the fenced area referred to in (11), what is the length of the

fenced watercourse that will be revegetated?

.......km

.......km

.......km

.......km

.......km

......km

Land and water management

13) If your project improves water quality (eg from general farm operations or point sources) indicate the mainpollutants (eg nitrogen, phosphorus, salinity, sedimentation) and their source. Also indicate the extent ofbenefits for each pollutant by referring to current and target pollution levels.

. main pollutants

. source

. achieved levels

. target levels. proposed levels

14) If your project will lead to other o Physical characteristics (eg managing erosion or build up in .....km

improvements in river/stream values,indicate the main benefits (tick one ormore boxes) and the length ofriver/stream or area of wetlands tobenefit.

beds, banks).o Aquatic/in-stream habitats.o Providing water for river health (environmental flows,

water for wetlands).o Other? Specify..........................................

.....km

.....km

.....km/ha.....km

.....km

.....km/ha.....km

15) If your project aims to control risingwatertables and salinity, indicate byticking the boxes which major activitiesyou are undertaking and the relevantareas

o Area of planting in recharge areaso Area of planting in non-recharge areaso Drainage construction (area drained)o Installing groundwater pumping systems (target area)

.......ha

.......ha .......ha.......ha

.......ha

.......ha

.......ha

.......ha16) If you are planting for watertable control,

what type of species is being used, andwhat area is being established? (tick oneor more boxes)

o Deep-rooted perennial crops/pastureso Local native specieso Non-local native specieso Exotic species

........ha ........ha ........ha ........ha

........ha

........ha

........ha

........ha17) If your project will improve water use

efficiency, indicate by ticking boxeswhether on or off-farm, the type ofactivity involved and the benefits to beexpected. How much water do youexpect to save/recycle (ml), and whatproportion (%) of the overall problemwill be addressed?

o On-farm oOff-farm activitieso recycling of treated effluento recycling of drainage watero wastewatero stormwatero adoption of more efficient water management systemso refurbishment of supply channelso other? specify........................................

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%.....ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%

......ML .......%18) If your project will contribute to

improved stabilisation against wind orwater erosion, or to improved soilcondition, please indicate how byspecifying the activity and area underimproved management. What proportion(%) of the affected area will be addressedby your project?

o revegetation (including fencing)o control of grazing pressureo dune stabilisationo use of cropping technologies (eg crop rotations, minimum

tillage)o gully stabilisationo other? specify.........................................

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

...........ha.......%

19) If your project will contribute toimproved utilisation of land according toits capability, please indicate the area ofland to be assessed and managed

o Area of land assessed for capability?o Area of this land managed according to capability?

.................ha

.................ha.................ha.................ha

according to its capability.20) Will activities forming part of

your project contribute to improved weedand pest management? Estimate area ofeffective pest control by type of pest

o Weeds (including aquatic)o Vertebrate pests (including aquatic)o other? specify.........................................

Farm Forestry Management

21) If you are establishing demonstrationplantings and trials comprising exoticand/or native species, specify mainspecies groupings used; area planted ormanaged; and number of landholdersparticipating in the project.

o native species for wood productiono native species primarily for non-wood productiono exotic species for wood productiono native forests• number of landholders participating

...........ha

...........ha

...........ha

...........ha

...............

...........ha

...........ha

...........ha

...........ha

...............

ACHIEVEMENTS (PRODUCT ORSERVICE)

DESCRIPTION QUANTITY

Proposed in application form Achieved by latestreport


Education and awarenessType of publication (report, brochure, book) oractivity (demonstration, field day) and topic

Target audience and location Quantity

TrainingPurpose and type of training activity Target audience and location Number of courses/workshops and expected number of people to

be trained

ACHIEVEMENTS (PRODUCT OR SERVICE) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY

Proposed in application form Achieved by latestreport


PlanningName of plan or feasibility study (including projectdevelopment and marketing strategies) and area ofstrategy (eg. regional, catchment, subcatchment)

Purpose of plan. Indicatepriority issues identified (eggroundwater management,nutrient management, riverrestoration, salinity, farmforestry feasibility studies etc)

Number to be published

MonitoringWhat is being monitored? How many sites, how often?

Indicate major activitiesundertaken (eg surveying,mapping, soil sampling) and atwhat stages.

How many people willparticipate?

Resource inventoryPurpose of inventory Indicate location. How many

sites, how often?Is data to be included onGeographical InformationSystems?

Area to be inventoried

Appendix Five: Note to Consultants

Introduction

The purpose of this attachment is to clarify the Commonwealth's expectations on theSite Visit Validation Form and to provide some additional information to assistconsultants use it.

Site Visits

It is envisaged that each consultant will conduct site visits to evaluate their particulartheme or program. As part of the site project visit, the consultant will complete astandard questionnaire for the purpose of activity/output validation. Thisquestionnaire is as provided by the Commonwealth. For each site visit, the consultantwill be provided with a copy of the proponent's application and progress reports. Theywill also be provided with a printout of the output data that has been previouslysupplied by proponents on application or progress reports.

The standardised questionnaire has two purposes.

First, it provides the basis for an assessment by the consultant of the extent to whichthe project is undertaking the activities and producing the outputs specified in theirapplication and/or progress reports.

Second, it provides the data to adjust or validate the aggregate data entered on thedatabase across Natural Heritage Trust or program or theme output data.

To achieve these ends it is expected that the consultant will enter the data from thequestionnaire into a standardised database format provided by the Commonwealth.This will enable aggregation across programs and themes. The consultant will alsoprovide an assessment based on the data they collect in a section of their report. Therewill be aspects of the project not covered by the questionnaire and consultants, inconsultation with review steering committees, are expected to formulate furtherquestions to meet the needs of each individual review.

Issues specific to the administration of the Site ValidationQuestionnaire

This form is not to be given to the proponent: it is for consultants to complete usingtheir observations, experience, general conversation on site and only as a last resort,direct questioning. It is acknowledged that many of the questions will be difficult to

answer and we are relying heavily on the judgement of the consultants to provide uswith at least indicative trends. Similarly, consultants are free to complete thequestionnaire questions in any order and at an apprpriate time in the context of thewhole site visit.

Question 1. Which NHT Broad Outcomes Area does the project address?(Tick all relevant areas – but only if a reasonably significant contribution)

While most projects can in some sense be regarded as covering all these four areas, we arelooking only for significant contributions. It may be useful to leave this question to last when theconsultant will have a good feel for the actuality of the project rather than what has been written.

Questions 2 – 6

Consultant's judgement is required to enter the current situation to validate theapplication/report form.

Question 7. Project Workplan and Milestones

A combination of consultant's observation and proponent responses will establish theachievements and timing. However, it is suggested that the 'reasons' for each result beelicited without prompting, with the categories in the form being used for codingonly. In this way we hope to gain a rough prioritisation of reasons rather than acompendium of complaints. In some instances the reason for delay will be the latereceipt of funding. This may be a sore point with proponents (and was raised at theNHT Stakeholders’ meeting last week) and the issue will need to be handledsensitively.

Question 8. Project Outputs

Consultants are asked to estimate the current situation. We recognise that as avalidation tool this can only give indicative results because of the physical difficultyof estimating accurately and because of the time lag between latest report date and sitevisit date. However we are confident that aggregated results across all sites visited inthe MTR can be of use in interpreting the database.

Appendix Six: Evaluation QuestionnaireNumber (Insert Project Number here and on sheet tab) Code Yes /

NoScore(high-

medium-low)

Numberor date

Notes

More clarity than Site Validation FormInputs

4 Involvement (C=community, L=local government, $=Commercialorganisations (not landholders) (Q6)

5 Could there be additional support? (same coding) (Q6)7 Has there been any divergence from the submitted budget?8 If there has been a divergence has this been approved?9 What has the NHT funding done (initiated new work?, speeded up processes?, expanded on-going

activities?, catalyzed local action?)Outputs & outcomes (Q8 of the SVF)

10 Are the desired outputs and outomes measurable and achievable?11 How have the project outputs been used by the group?12 If the project is a planning exercise, to what extent were those involved in implementation involved with the

planning?13 Has there been a wider interest, or even take up of the project's results?14 Improvements to riverine ecosystems?15 If you have improved a riverine environment, what measures have you used

to validate this improvement?16 Has there been any change in land use (say from dairying to horticulture) as

a consequence of this project?17 Have best management practices been implemented / advocated? If "Yes"

please describe?18 Property Mangement Planning?19 Have there been unintended outcomes (good and bad)?20 Who else should we talk to regarding this project?

Specific to MD 200121 What sort of Project is this (P = Inventory and planning, OW = works on water, OL = land works, S = staffing, teaching and education)

Pre NHT history

22 Has the Project a previous history?23 How many years? (before NHT funds)24 How many years will your project run for?25 How far through is your project?26 What was the previous level of investment / inputs?27 Sources of the previous investment (C=Com, S=State, L=Local) (might be

all)Questions for the evaluator

28 Did this site visit raise issues for Program Improvement? If yes pleasedescribe

29 Did you feel that this project was attacking symptoms rather than causes?30 What evidence did you see of enhancement of community capacity to

change?31 What important messages came from discussions with stakeholders?32 Look out for references to stormwater and groundwater and report33

Appendix Seven: Validator’s Questionnaire

Name:

State/Region in which site visits conducted:

Please provide a concise paragraph comment relating to each of the following terms ofreference/key issues to be addressed by the Mid Term Review of the Murray-Darling 2001Program (as documented in the consultancy brief), on the basis of the overall ‘perspective’ youobtained from conducting the MD2001 site visits.

10. How appropriate are the MD2001 Program objectives in meeting stakeholder needs?

11. How appropriate is the mix of projects funded under the MD2001 Program?

12. Comment on the linkage between outputs and outcomes, particularly when these are of a long-term nature.

13. What are the unintended results of the program, both positive and negative and how are they/can they be handled?

14. To what extent has the program enabled communities and governments to be aware,understand and participate in choices regarding the sustainable use of natural resources in theMurray-Darling Basin?

15. To what extent has the program contributed to the adoption of ecologically sustainable landand water management practices, particularly by incorporation into integratedregional/catchment planning and development frameworks?

16. To what extent has the program contributed to the integration of riverine issues with land andvegetation management issues so as to contribute to sustainable agriculture outcomes; and

17. To what extent has the program contributed to water quality and the ecological health of rivers,so as to contribute to broader environmental outcomes?

18. In addition, please provide some comment on the Standard NHT Validation Questionnaireprepared by the NHT. What were it’s strengths and weaknesses?

Environment Australia &Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry,Australia

99-0731-00.DOC Facsimile:(61 8) 8405 4301

ACN 078 004 798 A NATA Certified Quality Company

Independent evaluation of Australia's Murray-Darling 2001 Program

Documents